Re: Quality of Oracle MetaLink Notes
- From: "Andrew Kerber" <andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: hkchital@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:56:39 -0500
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
>
>
>
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
--
Andrew W. Kerber
'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
Other related posts:
