http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/33042.html
-----Original Message----- Stephane Faroult Sent: 25 September 2003 02:45 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <RANT> Well, concerning point 4), I am surprised by the resilience of users to often dreadful applications. Perhaps that with age I am getting more and more impatient, but in their place I would have flown terminal and keyboard across the room. Perhaps I have memories of a time when machines weren't even a shadow of today's, and performance were hardly worse than many things you see running today. When you try to measure the amount of 'business units processed per unit of work', it is pathetic more often than it should be. I guess that what saves many designers and developers from being lynched by popular justice is that most users have no idea about what *could* be done and are ready to swallow that Oracle is slow, their 64 processor machine not powerful enough, etc, etc. </RANT> SF Tanel Poder wrote: > > Forget the modern tuning skills and when you're asked what shows the best > that your database works optimally; > > 1) Buffer cache hit ratio is 99% > 2) Buffer cache hit ratio is 99,999% > 3) Buffer cache hit ratio is 999999% > 4) Users aren't complaining > > Then answer 3 for sure ;) > > Tanel. > > ----- Original Message ----- > To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 12:04 AM > > > List , I am planning to give my 9i performance tuning exam on the first
