Re: db block size
- From: Mladen Gogala <gogala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 01:50:41 -0400
On 06/21/2004 01:15:16 AM, Pete Sharman wrote:
> You just don't. Different block size tablespaces are there for transportab=
> le tablespaces only. Absolutely zero benefit outside of that.
Well, that is not quite true. If there are big tables that need to be read by
using
full table scan, than 16k buffer pool can act as recycle buffer pool and those
big tables will be read faster then if the block size was 8k. You can still
create normal indexes which reside in 8k tablespace onto 16k table. I can
see mixed sizes buffer pools being used in the mixed mode (OLTP & DSS)
databases, especially with RAC, when the big transaction history tables
are used for reporting purposes from the designated "batch node".
I tested a configuration like that, and 16k buffers provide real
benefits for the large full table scans, even if there were only 2048
16k buffers (32M in all). Pete, you have wrong ideas about absolute zero.
Absolutely wrong ideas.
--
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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:
