Interesting findings

Some could call this over-partitioned ?
Do you know a real-world usecase for such a partition scheme?

that's also my memory.
A well hidden secret 👍

Yes of course.

Yes, they would be fine.
The syntax is simple SQL92 - so Oracle of that time should be able to parse it. Just how long would it take?
Even bringing the SQL text into memory could likely cause paging ...

I'm living in 2.3 km walking distance to the factory.
🏃‍♂️

Had that already.
The results are well known.
"Fucking NO" to that logic!

one day I will attend HrOUG.
unfortunately not this year....

As it works on SERVICE level, it would perfectly match with
DBMS_APP_CONT_ADMIN.CREATE_CHILD_SERVICE
but sadly this fails in ADB-S with
ORA-44798: maximum number of child services exceeded for parent service
even the parent doesn't have any childs 🤯

It is a new feature called "smart connect".
docs.oracle.com/en/database/...
in ADB-S it can be enabled as PDB_DBA by using
exec DBMS_APP_CONT_ADMIN.ENABLE_SMART_CONNECTION ('MYDB_low.adb.oraclecloud.com');
1/2

> ... so häufig ...
ist das so, oder schlägt hier ein observer bias zu?
Mein Hirn ist so verdrahtet, dass es auf Ungewöhnliches stärker reagiert als auf Erwartetes. Auch wird es dann noch stärker wahrgenommen. - Das muss ich mit viel aktiver Denkleistung kompensieren.
Geht es anderen ähnlich?

during the test, no intelligence was falsely claimed

what do you refer "vibe pinning" to ?
my test is ADB-S - which has a specific set of options only.

good ideas, I didn't think about transactions priority - and did not tamper anything there.
Your 2nd suggestion summarizes vaguely what I intended to do. But ADB-S doesn't let me do this. (no COLOCATION_TAG, or INSTANCE_NAME in connect string is obeyed in ADB-S) .