Sunday, May 22, 2005

The Hitchhiker

Well, my son and I went last night. His comment in the first 15 minutes was "I cannot wait for this to come out on DVD, I want it". At the end of the movie he said "If someone asked me to see a movie twice, this would be it". He absolutely dug it big time.

I on the other hand am of mixed emotion on it. I thought the effects were done at exactly the right level -- campy but good. (The planet building factory was pretty cool). But it was just little things. I wanted to see the Restaurant at the end of the universe. I knew they couldn't fit in everything in, so missing bits are to be expected.

Guess I just thought it was ok, or just good.

But, I would go see it again -- just to take Alan. He didn't really sit in the seat, it was more like leaning forward to get closer to the screen. He had just read the series 2 or 3 months ago and it was fresh in his head. They kept pretty close to the story so for him, it was like watching what he just read.

All he wants to know is when is the sequel coming out.

On a non-related note -- anyone out there know of a decent small html editor? Something that just sticks in bold, italics, list and other type of tags and doesn't try to create massive amounts of HTML? Not dreamweaver, just a teeny tiny one. Reason I ask is -- you cannot paste in anything fancy to blogspot (their templates and Word kill eachother) and editing in the blogspot window is a bit dangerous. Unless you believe in the 2nd system effect of course, then editing in the blogspot window is great -- scrap the first cut (because it just disappeared) and do it all over again...

Most incredible statement I've heard this week:

Suggestion - put your tablespaces read only, it can greatly improve performance. This is because Oracle can bypass read consistency, reducing overhead and resulting in faster throughput.

Sounds plausible, but -- unfortunately, it is just a myth. You know what bypasses read consistency? Nothing really. But -- if you don't modify the data, Oracle won't have to undo the changes to a block. Can we prove that read consistency is not bypassed? Sure, if read consistency were bypassed, you could never get a 1555 on a read only tablespace, but you can.


Anonymous Anonymous said....

Mr. Kyte,

Why do you post these incredible myths without naming the source? You know we can just do a Google search to find the author.

Does this make you non-culpable somehow? Just point them to it and watch the fun, eh?

It's interesting that you note Burleson as a myth-maker instead of noting your own Oracle docs.

"Ensuring Repeatable Reads with Read-Only Transactions

A read-only transaction does not acquire any additional data locks to provide transaction-level read consistency. The multi-version consistency model used for statement-level read consistency is used to provide transaction-level read consistency; all queries return information with respect to the system control number (SCN) determined when the read-only transaction begins."

If it's a myth, why pick out Burleson as the target instead of your own Oracle documentation?

In the last six months it seems that asktom has been on a tirade to defame the Cherry Sisters. Is this a new corporate policy?

Sun May 22, 07:01:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Bill S. said....

I have used an html editor called ScriptWorx in the past - not too bad. I also tried Arachnophilia, but was not terribly impressed with it.

Anonymous, why do you assume that Mr. Burleson is being singled out by Tom? Tom has always gone after myths no matter who was propogating them. If you actually have been reading the AskTom website, you would know that your statement is not terribly accurate. Tom makes no bones about commenting on ANY article that a reader asks for his advice on. So if readers have been asking about Mr. Burleson's articles, well then that's what gets commented on. So you haven't actually been READING the site then, have you?

Sun May 22, 08:41:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Thomas Kyte said....

Have you actually read the documentation there. Did you understand what it said?

it was talking about "ensuring REPEATABLE READS using set TRANSACTION"

someone else says "set your tablespaces read only, it can greatly improve performance"

But how you get from "a read only transaction ensures repeatable reads"

to "it can greatly improve performance"

Is beyond me. Can you explain how this leap of faith, happened? If the author had some repeatable test case or evidence of a performance gain, that'd be great. (geez, even just a number, but "greatly improve?!?!?!")

But bottom line -- there is no way to suspend the number law of Oracle -- READ CONSISTENCY. And you know what, the documentation isn't disagreeing with that at all (in fact, I'm at a TOTAL loss as to how to connect the quote from the docs you made and "performance improvement with read only tablespaces")

I file doc bugs all of the time (probably at least once or twice a week). Unfortunately, some web sites do not allow for comments and the only method I have to get the truth out is to, well, speak it. If all posted information in the internet allowed for followup -- commentary, questions -- who knows? We might have higher quality information.

Look, I'm not targeting an individual, or even a group. I am quite simply trying to let people know how the software actually works. Isn't that what we all should be doing?

If someone were bold enough to say "make your tablespaces read only for performance", they should be able to "show us". No? I take nothing on faith. Not from someone with 50 years experience, or 5 days experience. If they want to publish "tips", get fame for that -- they better go the extra mile or expect others to say "back up the bus, let's take a look at this".

Where -- in the oracle documention -- did you or anyone read that a read only tablespace bypasses multiversioning. If you can point that out, I'll be MORE THAN GLAD to immediately file a bug report. Hey -- on another blog about a misperception someone had with "exceptions into", I did file a bug on the documentation (not about that, but about the default date values that are supplied with the TO_DATE() function). It'll be in the very next release. On asktom you'll see many many examples of my saying "got a doc bug there, thanks, I filed it".

Continual input is the only way to continual improvement. Don't you agree???

And I really do not understand the 'culpable' bit there. It seems you are trying to convey some sense of "guilt" should be associated with saying "hey, look at this statement -- seems plausible but under the covers -- lets think about this.

And I don't think I've ever refered to anyone -- ever -- as "the cherry sisters", in private or public. However, I can say:


1. To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel. See Synonyms at malign.
2. Archaic. To disgrace.

So, you must be sort of using the archaic meaning, because slander or libel certainly does not apply here at all, both of those infer knowingly stating something false (that would be what the author of that statement about read only tablespaces would be doing if they persist after reading this -- if they do). But the archaic meaning doesn't really apply either since it would be disgraceful only if the person propagating the myth continues to do so wouldn't it?

so, bottom line -- can you show read only tablespaces suspending multi-versioning or point to documentation that states it does? I'll get the docs fixed up immediately if you can.

Sun May 22, 08:54:00 PM EDT  

Anonymous Doug said....

Anonymous ....

"Ensuring Repeatable Reads with Read-Only Transactions"

What does this have to do with read-only tablespaces?

Sun May 22, 08:55:00 PM EDT  

Anonymous Doug said....

Sorry, posted that before I'd noticed Tom's follow-up. Just couldn't understand the bizarre comment from anonymous!

Sun May 22, 08:58:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Thomas Kyte said....

Doug -- no worries, we were like a minute apart :)

But a quick correction, I meant to say:

there is no way to suspend the number ONE law of Oracle

I missed the word one in the original...

But Doug -- you said very succinctly what my point was.

Actually, I can make it even shorter.

To anonymous:


Sun May 22, 09:08:00 PM EDT  

Anonymous Matt Topper said....

If you only want to use it for blogger, you can use w.bloggar ( its a blog editor that can post automagically to a blogger blog.

Sun May 22, 10:22:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Thomas Kyte said....

If you only want to use it for blogger

It looked nice -- but no wysiwyg editor. I'll give it a try, but I found editing the HTML directly to be a bit of a pain.

thanks for the pointer.

Mon May 23, 07:54:00 AM EDT  

Anonymous Anonymous said....

Would like to see that movie, But it is not released in the netherlands before 4 august. :(

Mon May 23, 07:57:00 AM EDT  

Anonymous Anonymous said....

I use the HTML editor feature that was built into the original Mozilla. Just add -edit to the Mozilla shortcut.

Mon May 23, 08:47:00 AM EDT  

Anonymous Mark from NY said....


Check out Quanta - The app itself isn't very small (so I'm not sure if it fits your lightweight criterion), as it has a huge number of features...none of which are forced on you in any way. You could use quanta simply as a syntax highlighting text editor if you want.


Mon May 23, 11:56:00 AM EDT  

Blogger Rachel said....

Tom -- yes I wanted to see the Restaurant at the End of the Universe as well but.... they basically just did book 1 of the (5 book) trilogy. So you have an entire movie to look forward to, instead of just wishing for a few scenes :)

Think how confusing the Harry Potter movies would be if the books were all rolled into one movie!

Mon May 23, 01:20:00 PM EDT  

Anonymous Anonymous said....

FCK editor sounds like something you
might find useful :

You've been a great help to me over
the years, hope this helps you.

BobD from NYC

Tue May 24, 02:09:00 PM EDT  

Blogger LewisC said....

Hi Tom,

Here's a decent editor. Not really wysiwyg but has buttons for the usual bold, italic, etc. I just re-downloaded it after not using any editor for a number of years.


Thu May 26, 06:10:00 AM EDT  

Blogger Don Seiler said....

This is a sore spot for me. I had been awaiting the release of this movie ever since it was announced years ago. Once the release date was set I made plans to take my 12-year-old brother-in-law who had read the first book in anticipation. Then, for reasons still unknown to me, my wife basically ruined the moment with never-ending comments about how I would be waisting my money and noting all the negative reviews that she and her mother were reading about it.

Of course I don't value their opinions in matters of science fiction movies or the literature that I enjoy, but it basically soured my mood on the weekend and I had to cancel my plans. I still haven't seen it, and am hoping it will re-emerge at my local budget cinema. They serve pizza and beer there as well.

Although I think I have discovered a method to my wife's madness now. If there is something she doesn't want me to do, she just needs to ruin the whole experience surrounding it without explicitly saying "don't go". PURE EVIL.

Sat Jun 04, 10:12:00 PM EDT  

Anonymous Sally said....

I can't understand how anybody on the planet can't have read Douglas Adams. He was genious, although a strong understanding of English humour must be necessary. The film doen't touch a tenth of the interest, irony or dry wit of the books. I enjoyed the film, the BBC radio series from the early 80's is awesome, but the books are a full read not to be missed.

Sun Jun 04, 02:54:00 PM EDT  


<< Home