Re: db block size
- From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:13:51 +0100
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:15:16 +1000, Pete Sharman
<peter.sharman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> You just don't. Different block size tablespaces are there for transportab=
> le tablespaces only. Absolutely zero benefit outside of that.
>
> One day soon I hope this message spreads a bit more broadly. Maybe we shou=
> ld put it in a FAQ somewhere. :(
<Red Rag to Bull>
Absolutely zero? As in *never* useful outside of that?
Possibilities that spring to mind.
LOBS/Long/varchar2(4000) cols *might* benefit from larger block sizes,
especially if the 'large' objects are actually quite small (say 8k in
size). I would *guess* that small and very frequently updated LOBS
would be good candidates - especially if PCTVERSION is set insanely.
seperating these sorts of objects usage of the buffer cache out from
that of 'ordinary' usage might be beneficial/more efficient (though I
guess the recycle pool might be a good alternative).
I don't like *never*.
</Red Rag>
<completely lost it>
then of course we could put index and data segments in different block
sized tablespaces to reap huge performance benefits (say 500%) in the
same way as seperating them physically is good, seperating them in
memory would be good too
</completely lost it>
Cheers
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
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:
