Re: Anyone using multi-block sizes for their databases
- From: Juan Carlos Reyes Pacheco <juancarlosreyesp@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Lex de Haan <lex.de.haan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:37:15 -0400
Really Thanks Lex for the point is very important, I talk with tom and
I change my advice, what do you think about this.
So the point is,
Multiple block sizes were implemented to transport tablespaces.
Don't use multiple block sizes, unless you have evidence this really
improves your performance, and this don't makes unmanageable your
database.
Using multi-block tablespace block sizes, can incrase the complexity
of your cache maintenance, in a way you can have to go back and return
to a single block size tablespace.
Remember neither 10g automatic sga tuning feature includes different
block sizes for autotuning.
For me, I have a small database, I have a 32k tablepace for blob
documents and 16k for indexes. Because this allows to separate the
memory. I'm in process of test, I like this idea because I can say
"blob documents don use more than 10 MB of memory, and I set a fixed
memory only for indexes."
But I can't say this really improves my performance. I'll have to run
a more serious test to get a conclusion, sometime in the future :).
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
