RE: db_file_multiblock_read_count and performance
- From: "Cary Millsap" <cary.millsap@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:39:08 -0600
This is an interesting question. I would expect the answer to be:
"Proof of whether or not the manipulation of the parameter makes any
difference to the performance of a measured task."
Yes?
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
* Nullius in verba *
Upcoming events:
- Performance Diagnosis 101: 1/4 Calgary
- SQL Optimization 101: 12/13 Atlanta
- Hotsos Symposium 2005: March 6-10 Dallas
- Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details...
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Khedr, Waleed
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:32 PM
To: Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: db_file_multiblock_read_count and performance
What did you expect to see in 10046 file?
-----Original Message-----
From: ryan_gaffuri@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ryan_gaffuri@xxxxxxxxxxx]=20
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:21 PM
To: Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: db_file_multiblock_read_count and performance
I have been testing this extensively over the last few months. I do a
full table scan with a db_file_multiblock_read_count =3D 1 and then one =
=3D
128( i check the 10046 trace to verify i am getting this much) and I see
absolutely no difference whatsoever in response time.=20
i am doing=20
select count(*)
from heap_table;
I have tested this on windows xp, solaris, with EMC, netapp, and regular
old cheap off the shelf hard drives. I have tested it in 8.1.7,
9.0,9.1,9.2.
has anyone see a response time improvement from this parameter anywhere?
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
