> From: DENNIS WILLIAMS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/10/06 Mon AM 09:34:25 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Re: Physical I/O and databases other than oracle
>
> Cary - Thanks so much for providing the historical pe
tes that in oracle this isnt true. HOWEVER, what about other
databases?
>
> From: Mladen Gogala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/10/02 Thu PM 12:34:33 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Physical I/O and databases other tha
inal Message-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:15 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
my email states that in oracle this isnt true. HOWEVER, what about other
databases?
>
> From: Mladen Gogala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/10/02 Thu PM 12
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 3:15 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Re: Physical I/O and databases other than oracle
>
>
> my email states that in oracle this
2003/10/02 Thu PM 01:09:36 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Physical I/O and databases other than oracle
>
> This is not an issue of answering the question, but pointing out that the question
> is not correct.
>
> W
Title: RE: Physical I/O and databases other than oracle
So to look good,
I should unplug all the CPU boards except one or two to end up with CPU
limitation :)
Regards,
Waleed
-Original Message-From: David Wagoner
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, October 02,
2003
>ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> @wangtrading.com cc:
>
> >Subject: Re: Phy
my email states that in oracle this isnt true. HOWEVER, what about other databases?
>
> From: Mladen Gogala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/10/02 Thu PM 12:34:33 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Physical I/O and
This is not an issue of answering the question, but pointing out that the question is
not correct.
Why do databases exist (aside to make Larry money)? To 'permanently' store data. As
this storage must survive a system failure, we choose to place the data on a
non-volatile medium (disk, paper, s
ala
@wangtrading.com cc:
>Subject: Re: Physical I/O and databases
other than oracle
S
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 11:44, Garry Gillies wrote:
> > Im reading an academic book on databases and it states that Physical I/O
> Eh?
> What IS the primary bottleneck in tuning Oracle?
Cache hit ratio. You tune the buffer cache hit ratio (BCHR) and your job
is done. Database with 99.9% BCHR must
Title: RE: Physical I/O and databases other than oracle
According to one recently published source*, in a well-tuned database system, the server should be CPU-limited. The reasoning here is that in a perfectly tuned system, the other bottlenecks of I/O, network, etc. have been eliminated, so
> Im reading an academic book on databases and it states that Physical I/O
is often the > primary bottleneck in tuning. Its not the case in Oracle.
Is this statement correct
> with sybase, sql server, or DB2? or maybe mysql?
Eh?
What IS the primary bottleneck in tuning Oracle?
I go along with J
13 matches
Mail list logo
