Re: 32K block size tablespace for indexes
- From: hrishy <hrishys@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:35:55 +0000 (GMT)
Hi Niall
Thanks for the reply after going through the thread its sounds like the
pereceived benfit by moving to a large block size must be thoroughly tested its
no gaurantee that performance will improve.
I was wundering why did oracle come out with multiple block size feature
considering that in my whole carrer as a DBA i have used large block size only
for BLOB column storage and nothing else.
Is exadata the reason for large blocksize ?
regards
Hrishy
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: 32K block size tablespace for indexes
- From: Yavor Ivanov
- Re: 32K block size tablespace for indexes
- From: Greg Rahn
- RE: 32K block size tablespace for indexes
- References:
- Re: 32K block size tablespace for indexes
- From: Niall Litchfield
- Re: 32K block size tablespace for indexes
Other related posts:
- » 32K block size tablespace for indexes - hrishy
- » Re: 32K block size tablespace for indexes - Niall Litchfield
- » Re: 32K block size tablespace for indexes - hrishy
- » Re: 32K block size tablespace for indexes - Guillermo Alan Bort
- » RE: 32K block size tablespace for indexes - Yavor Ivanov
- » Re: 32K block size tablespace for indexes - Jared Still
- » Re: 32K block size tablespace for indexes - Andy Rivenes
- » Re: 32K block size tablespace for indexes - Greg Rahn