Re: SGA QUESTION

From: Jared Still <jkstill_at_cybcon.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 07:07:35 -0700
Message-ID: <F001.0033D6BD.20010629065059@fatcity.com>

> > 200MB? I realize simply adding memory is not the solution for fixing a
> > poorly tuned database, but on the other hand, if you have a lot of memory
> > why not use it?
> >
> > - Greg

---

> Hi Jared,
> I think like Greg . Why not use 2-4 gb of 8 gb memory for SGA. ?
> If It has bad results ,Then How can I understand it?
> Thank you Greg and Jared and All others.
> Bunyamin

No one said this is a poorly performing system, as it isn't even built yet.

Allocating 50% of your memory may be possible, but also may be a bad idea, it really depends on the system, which we know nothing about other than it has 8 gig of memory.

If it's a data warehouse, it's probably a bad idea. There's usually a lot of full tables scans and little need for a large data block buffer size or a large shared pool.

On a DW though, there is a need for a lot of system memory to satisfy the parallel processes and sort_area_size requirements.

If it's OLTP, it really depends on the # of users and the application, as well as considerations such as MTS, etc.

Jared

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Jared Still
  INET: jkstill_at_cybcon.com

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).

Received on Fri Jun 29 2001 - 09:07:35 CDT