RE: SAP Reorgs
- From: "Michael Fontana" <mfontana@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:01:30 -0500
I think we now have anecdotal evidence which proves, in at least these
two situations, that someone has assumed that what is good for one or
two major rdbms implementations must then of course be good for all.
Michael Fontana
Sr. DBA
NTT/Verio
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Powell, Mark D
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 8:32 AM
To: 'oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: SAP Reorgs
The version 8 DB2 UDB manual and the SQL Server 2000 training materials
I have been using both recommend object reorganization for performance
purposes. The emphasis is on index reorganizations and in a
multi-database organization what is a good idea in one db may seem to be
a good idea in the others.
There is no substitute for in-depth knowledge of your tool set, but
knowledge takes time to accumulate and it can be an uphill battle to
convince co-workers to change procedures.
IMHO -- Mark D Powell --
----------------------------------------------------------------
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:
