Re: DBMS_STATS
- From: Joe Cooper <aregularjoe8@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
Hey, Tim and Wolfgang!
Thanks for putting it into perspective. I guess I was getting a little
frustrated locking down all those tables (as you mentioned, Wolfgang), and
cursing Uncle Larry's crew for the added work. In the big picture, it's
probably no big deal, but in the middle of a migration plan with crazy (read
"short") deadlines, this amounts to extra work that I could do without.
Couldn't they have made it an init param?? Default it to auto for the
inexperienced, but easily overridden by those of us with grey in our beards --
mostly from an accelerated aging process brought on by being an Oracle DBA!!
:-)
I guess if this job were easy, anyone could do it -- and the pay would stink.
As it is, the job is challenging -- fun, but challenging -- and the pay is only
mildly odorous!
Joe
Tim Johnston <tjohnston@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Joe...
I think this goes back to the lowest common denominator argument... =20
. . .
Basically, I think Oracle feels it's a lot easier for an experienced DBA =
to disable stats then it is for an inexperienced DBA to enable stats=20
when necessary... And to be honest, they are probably right... =20
Especially on the low end deployments where they are fighting with that=20
whiz bang self managing GUI controlled beast from Redmond...
My $0.02
Tim
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
