RE: os cache vs. db cache
- From: "Allen, Brandon" <Brandon.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Chris Dunscombe" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <robyn.sands@xxxxxxxxx>, "oracle-l" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:56:17 -0700
I think you'd still be better off to cache those full table scans in the
Oracle cache (e.g. alter table my_fts_tab cache). That way, you avoid
having to copy them from the OS cache to the DB cache and all the
overhead that is involved with performing a consistent get, which would
make your performance even better.
For more info:
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14200/statement
s_7002.htm#i2215507
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dunscombe [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
One situation I've experienced was a smallish (< 250GB) third-party
online operational database on Solaris where the OS cache acted as a
cache for Full Table scans of tables around the 100-300 MB size. This
worked well although it was more by accident than design.
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message or
attachments hereto. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business
of this company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
