That is an inexcusably bad note. You are correct, it is imprecise and arrogant, basically it is useless. Have you brought it to the attention of a manager? On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Hemant K Chitale <hkchital@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In the past 1 (or 2?) years, the quality of notes on MetaLink has > significantly deteriorated. > Some are outright misleading (and potentially dangerous to novice DBAs). > However, in recent months, I have noticed notes that are also > arrogant or disrespectful > to the customer. > > One example, one which I did send feedback to Oracle Support is Note > 558846.1. > > This is the feedback that I have sent : > > I find the language used in Note 558846.1 : > 1. Unclear > 2. Arrogant or dismissive > > The Symptoms section states > "Running a SQL script that returns a great amount of data on Windows" > while the Cause section, referring to Bug6867504 states > "On Windows if you issue highly recursive or very large SQL > statements you will blow the RDBMS stack" > > Is the Bug logged against "a great amount of data" > OR is it logged against "highly recursive SQL" > OR is it logged against "very large SQL statement" > > What is "a great amount of data" ? 5MB ? 500MB ? xx number of records > ? Some figure with respect to a fixed Buffer Size ? > What is "highly recursive SQL" ? One that makes 10 recursive calls ? > One that makes 100 recursive calls ? > What is "very large SQL statement" ? One that has a text length of > 5000 characters ? A length of 50000 characters ? A length of 5Mbytes ? > > Is the langauge "blow the RDBMS stack" one that is used by a > Technical Support person talking to a DBA/Developer ? > What does it mean by "blow .. the stack" ? Should it be "exceed the > hardcoded stack size of 1MB " ? > > What is related to the stack size ? "a great amount of data" OR > "highly recursive SQL" OR "very large SQL statement" ? > WHERE is the problem ? > > Is the solution section > "Note that any SQL statement that has a lot of repeated values is a > poor SQL and will probably cause such problems so it's best never to > use such bad SQL and try to tune your queries. > If you have a statement that will not work within the 5 MB stack that > you have adjusted, you will never know what the correct results are > anyway." > a REAL WORLD Solution recommendation ? (and, by the way what is "a > lot of repeated values" ? how many is "a lot" ?) > > How does your analyst define "poor SQL" and "bad SQL" in the context > of this particular Note and Bug ? > If I have an SQL statement that contains a very long INLIST such that > it exceeds a certain size (what size ?) is it "poor SQL" or "bad SQL" ? > And what does the analyst mean by "you will never know what the > correct results are anyway" ? Is THAT the sort of response > I expect from an RDBMS vendor ? > > > > > Hemant K Chitale > http://hemantoracledba.blogspot.com > > > > -- > http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > > > -- Andrew W. Kerber 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'