RE: 32K block size tablespace for indexes
- From: Yavor Ivanov <Yavor_Ivanov@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "hrishys@xxxxxxxxxxx" <hrishys@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:56:50 +0200
Tom Kyte wrote in his book that multiple blocksizes are intended only
for Transportable Tablespace between databases with different blocksizes,
period.
I, personally, agree with this. Of course, there might be some extreme
cases on databases with mixed workloads, where there are some OLAP-like parts
and some extreme OLTP parts. But in most cases the administration overhead is
much bigger than the performance benefit. You can easily end up with over- or
undersized db_XXk_cache_size and the database can't do anything about it. Then
the performance will be better in some parts of the day and worse later on.
But... never say never. Maybe your DB is that rare case where having
multiple blocksizes helps a lot
Regards,
Yavor Ivanov
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of hrishy
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:36 AM
To: Niall Litchfield
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 32K block size tablespace for indexes
Hi Niall
Thanks for the reply after going through the thread its sounds like the
pereceived benfit by moving to a large block size must be thoroughly tested its
no gaurantee that performance will improve.
I was wundering why did oracle come out with multiple block size feature
considering that in my whole carrer as a DBA i have used large block size only
for BLOB column storage and nothing else.
Is exadata the reason for large blocksize ?
regards
Hrishy
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
