RE: Does (block)Size really matter?

Ron, You did not specify how the data is passed on from database 2 to
database 3 such as directly and immediately via another link, or
indirectly via a trigger on a table via another database link or batch
processing.  That makes it a little hard to identify the problem.  The
various Oracle versions for each database might also be of interest.

I suggest that the next time you run the process that since it takes 1.5
hours that you connect to each database (or coordinate with local DBA)
and monitor each session.  You should be able to get an idea of which of
the 3 databases is the problem.  Running concurrent traces on each
database for 5 or 10 minutes might go a long way in identifying the
problem.

HTH -- Mark D Powell --



-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Goulet, Dick
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:06 AM
To: rlsmith@xxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Does (block)Size really matter?

Probably not.=3D20

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith, Ron L.
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 9:17 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Does (block)Size really matter?

I have a process that sends data through a dblink to an intermediate
database and then on to another database.  The first database is blocked
at 4096, the second is at 8192, the third at 8192.  Response is slow
(5000 rows in 1.5 hours.  Could the difference in block size be a
factor?

Thanks!
Ron


Important Notice!!
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, any use, =
=3D
=3D3D distribution or copying of the message is prohibited.
Please let me know immediately by return e-mail if you have received =
=3D3D
this message by mistake, then delete the e-mail message.
Thank you.
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Other related posts: