Re: Using RMAN to change DB_BLOCK_SIZE

A 30% improvement in what operation?  Data load?  Query time?  Both?
What do you attribute the 30% to?  Simply changing the block size
or something else (data file placement, etc)?
What does the performance profile (AWR/ASH top 5) look like for each
operation (16k vs 32k).

The more details you can give the better.

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Haroon Qureshi <haroon.qureshi@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Thank you for the tips.  My testing included creating a 32k
> tablespace.  I ran some tests there and found that we had about a 30%
> improvement with the 32k block size over 16k.  This is a DW and we
> want to increase our throughput and performance for our ETL loads.  We
> also are moving to ASM.
>


-- 
Regards,
Greg Rahn
http://structureddata.org

Other related posts: