If you see a comment like “X is a bad idea” this does not mean “some mechanism that is vaguely ‘not X’ is a good idea”.
If, for example, I say:
that is absolutely not the same as saying
If this were a purely mathematical world we could invoke symbolic logic and point out:
(A => B) <=> (¬B => ¬A)
which means my statement is equivalent to:
Of course, being Oracle, you may find that someone, somewhere, has exactly such a histogram that appears to work brilliantly for them – but that will be because the optimizer has messed up the arithmetic so much that they are getting a great execution plan for completely the wrong reason … so they need to watch out for the next upgrade or patch release in case the optimizer gets enhanced.
Here’s a useful description I heard recently from philosopher Daniel Dennett:
The canons of good spin:
It seems to describe a lot of the stuff that our industry publishes on the internet.
The English language is full of irregular verbs, for example: I am hypothesising about possible explanations You are guessing He’s talking rubbish [Back to Philosophy 10] Filed under: humour, Philosophy
The most significant question to ask when thinking about adding a new index: “Will the index eliminate significantly more work than it introduces (at the moments when it really matters) ?” A few examples of “moments that matter”: Bulk housekeeping Highly concurrent OLTP activity Frequent high-precision reporting Acceptance testing for side effects [Back to Philosophy [...]