Hi Chris That is why I am still questioning advisr's effciency and asking if people has got experiences using it to size buffer cache. If we look at ASMM or AMM which I suppose they use the advisors internally (or no?) the advisor doesnt seem useful at all. I just got a couple of AWR from a customer who is using memory_target, set to 3GB and AMM set shared pool to 2GB, PGA to 900MB and buffer cache to 64MB (!?#!). Thanks On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Chris Taylor < christopherdtaylor1994@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Seth, > > Really? I have run into a few situations where the advisor undersizes > the buffer cache significantly in favor of the shared pool because of the > workload of the application. > I've got a db right _now_ that has a 128MB buffer cache and a 20GB shared > pool that AMM resized because of the workload :) > > Obviously, the solution to this is to set floor (minimum) values for > shared_pool_size and db_cache_size but it still amazes me that ASMM/AMM > will significantly undersize the buffer cache when the workload uses a lot > of SQL that isn't reuseable. > > And I clearly recognize that the workload is suboptimal (lots of SQL with > literals and a few other things) that favor a large shared pool, and my > only point is that it isn't uncommon for the automatic memory resizing to > size the buffer cache to an absurd size :) > > Chris > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Seth Miller <sethmiller.sm@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> Ls, >> >> I have found with very few exceptions that ASMM (SGA_TARGET) is very good >> at sizing the buffer cache. Have you tried this? >> >> Seth Miller >> On Sep 4, 2014 3:38 PM, "Ls Cheng" <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Has anyone used buffer cache advisory in 10g or 11g to size a production >>> buffer cache? If so how good is the advisor recommending the cache size? >>> Did the recommended cache size meet the ohysical reads reduction goal? >>> >>> TIA >>> >>> >>> >