Re: Question on diff block sizes in DB
- From: Tim Gorman <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:30:40 -0600
Mike,
With all due respect, the multiple block size feature is intended merely to
support transportable tablespaces. Attempting to use it to optimize space
or performance is just not very effective.
Pick a block size and stick to it. The best guideline is to match the
file-system block size, if you are using file-systems.
Also, I think that it is a mistake to say that this database "will not be
using transportable tablespaces". Attempting to predict the future usually
causes it to swerve in unexpected directions -- one of the corollaries to
Murphy's Law, I think?
Hope this helps...
-Tim
on 4/16/04 3:49 PM, Mike Schmitt at mschmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I was wandering if anyone had any experience or recommendations for the
> following. We will be implementing a database that will be similar to a
> small warehouse having some tables that will be fairly well partitioned and
> be sized/grow 17G a year. Along with these we will have some smaller
> lookup tables that we do not know the sizes of. I looked over the
> suggested spec today and had some questions related to using different
> database block sizes within the database (database will be 9.2.0.4)
>
> All Data and Index Tablespaces reside on: 32k block size tablespaces, 256k
> VM I/O read size, 64k strip width on SAN (SAN stuck at 64k strip size),
> with db_file_multiblock_read_count of 8
>
> All System, Temp, undo, lookup table tablespaces reside on: 8k block size
> tablespaces, 64k VM I/O read size, 64k strip width size on SAN (SAN stuck
> at 64k strip size), with db_file_multiblock_read_count of 8
>
> Since the system will not be using transportable tablespaces, is there much
> of a benefit to separating this data into different block sizes. I
> initially felt that since we were only dealing with the System tablespace
> and a group of lookup tables, the design/administration would be easier to
> keep everything uniform(block size, VM IO). I also felt that we should at
> least use the 32k block size for the temp tablespace and possibly Undo
> tablespace as well.
>
> Since I do not have any experience with using databases with different
> block sizes, I was hoping someone might share their experience and give
> advice against what has been spec'd
>
> Much appreciated
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
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:
