comments in line... I may need correction from some of you on this.
> -Original Message-
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:39 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>
>
> Wondering if there is a "rule of thumb", quick'n fast but good enough
> to be used as an indicator, litmu
Branimir
Beware of simple ratios.
The logic is seductive. It seems likely that an easy way to find
unnecessary indexes is to look at a ratio such as you describe. And it
shouldn't pose much load on a system to do a quick report on ratio. But what
would it mean in practice? Just go around d
indexes.
for the record, that is one of the best oracle websites out there. Lots of great stuff
on it.
>
> From: Branimir Petrovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2004/01/21 Wed AM 10:39:25 EST
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Healty
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Healty ratio of index segment size vs table segment size?
>
> Wondering if there is a "rule of thumb", quick'n fast but good enough
> to be used as an indicator, litmus paper so to speak, of
Wondering if there is a "rule of thumb", quick'n fast but good enough
to be used as an indicator, litmus paper so to speak, of overly indexed
table(s)...
Can, better yet - should, sheer size comparison of index versus table
segments be used as a reliable pointer to problematic table indexing?
