Re: FW: Why "Separating Data and Indexes improves performance" is a myth?
- From: Barbara Baker <barbarabbaker@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 07:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
Not only is it not in the dumpster, I'm currently in
the process of trying to upgrade this piece of crap to
9i. This is the horror story about the upgrade to 8i
where we hit 2 bugs and our performance went down the
tubes. (and oracle refused to address bugs, even tho
we were under support.) exp/imp won't work. we might
entertain ideas about unloading/reloading the entire
databases. (In my spare time...) So the block size is
STILL 4068.
Ok, so the vendor who wrote this gem created a block
size of 4068. (Dan: you remember these bozos?)
Their rationale, which they placed in the init file:
###############################################################################
# The db_block_size is set at 9 multiples of 512
bytes(OpenVMS block size)
# This is to accomodate the WO table. The average row
length of the WO table is
# 900 bytes. A 4608 parameter allows 5 rows to be
stored in a single Oracle bloc
k
# Do not change without consulting (I removed the
vendor name)
In addition to the basic stupidity of the 4608 block
size, they did not take into account either (1) new
columns in the table, nor (2) space required in the
header.
So I'm wondering . . . When we hit either 9i or 10g,
will the block size cause this thing to finally
implode???
Inquiring minds want to know . . .
--- Tim Gorman <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Barb Baker: Do you want to tell everyone about the
> 3rd-party COTS
> application that demanded DB_BLOCK_SIZE = 4608? And
> the rationale behind
> that number?
>
> Hopefully it's been migrated to a dumpster by now,
> right?
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:32:36 +0100
> To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Why "Separating Data and Indexes
> improves performance" is a
> myth?
>
>
> I believe Stephan Haisley has built a 9i database
> with a 7.5K block size (not for production reasons,
> of course).
>
> There is an argument for using a (slightly) unusual
> size
> block if your main purpose is to handles large
> numbers
> of uniformly sized LOBs. Whether it would work or
> not
> is something to be investigated.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Lewis
> http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
>
> The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
> http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
>
> April 2004 Iceland
> http://www.index.is/oracleday.php
> June 2004 UK - Optimising Oracle Seminar
> July 2004 USA West Coast, Optimising Oracle Seminar
> August 2004 Charlotte NC, Optimising Oracle Seminar
> September 2004 USA East Coast, Optimising Oracle
> Seminar
> September2004 UK - Optimising Oracle Seminar
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jacques Kilchoer"
> <Jacques.Kilchoer@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 7:11 PM
> Subject: RE: Why "Separating Data and Indexes
> improves performance" is a
> myth?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Paul Drake
> >=20
> > I would think that non-power of 2 block sizes
> would
> > subject the actor with ORA-600s beyond their
> wildest
> > dreams.
>
> I don't think you can even create a tablespace with
> a blocksize that's =
> not a power of 2 with Oracle 9.0 or higher, but I
> can tell you that an =
> 8.1 database with a blocksize of 3K and a locally
> managed autoallocate =
> tablespace makes for some amusing ORA-600s.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ:
> http://www.orafaq.com
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe send email to:
> oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
> --
> Archives are at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
> FAQ is at
> //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ:
> http://www.orafaq.com
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe send email to:
> oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
> --
> Archives are at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
> FAQ is at
> //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
