RE: Any performance benefits in going to db_16k_cache_size or db_32k_cache_size
- From: "Abhay Suresh Kulkarni" <AbhKulkarni@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <arunchakrapanirao@xxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:34:58 +0530
> I was trying to do some bench marking here for one of the queries with
8,16 and 32k index tablespaces.
> All I am seeing is the logical reads going down by half but the
elapsed time for these queries are still the same.
For operations like nested loop, PIO may go down by 2 but LIO will be
same. As far as timing of queries is concerned, tune it to use better
access paths if any.
Collecting histograms with appropriate bucket size will to the trick for
many a bad queries.
Rgds
Abhay
Manhattan Assoicates
Phone: 40418080 Ext: 4635
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of arun chakrapani rao
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:10 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Any performance benefits in going to db_16k_cache_size or
db_32k_cache_size
Hi all,
I am currently working on a 1.5T DSS running on 8k blocksize.
This db is 90% of the time doing sequential reads.
Was wondering if we go for a 16k or 32k blocksize just on index alone
would there be any benefits in performance.
Has anybody impletemented this and seen any performance benefits,
Please do share your experience.
I was trying to do some bench marking here for one of the queries with
8,16 and 32k index tablespaces.
All I am seeing is the logical reads going down by half but the
elapsed time for these queries are still the same.
Now what am i missing?
Please do share your thoughts.
--
thanks in advance.
Arun
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
