RE: Cache a table

From: Bobak, Mark <Mark.Bobak_at_il.proquest.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:34:29 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.005DB848.20040102103429@fatcity.com>

In addition to Jared's latest comment, what Oracle version are you on?

Have you considered multiple buffer pools, which are often a much cleaner solution?

-Mark

-----Original Message-----

From:	Jared.Still_at_radisys.com [mailto:Jared.Still_at_radisys.com]
Sent:	Fri 1/2/2004 12:54 PM
To:	Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Cc:	
Subject:	RE: Cache a table

This thread started on 10/21/2003, with a *lot* of comments.

No time to read it all, so I'll just work with what appears here.

Have considered that this table is simply used a lot and remains in the cache because it belongs there due to frequent access?

SQL with high LIO's?

Jared

Ravi Kulkarni <nandagokul_at_yahoo.com>
Sent by: ml-errors_at_fatcity.com
 01/02/2004 07:59 AM
 Please respond to ORACLE-L  

        To:     Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: Cache a table

That was what we expected. This is a highly active PeopleSoft Database. Will it take several months to push those blocks out ? Though not true, it appears the nocache had no effect at all ..

-Ravi.

• "Bobak, Mark" <Mark.Bobak_at_il.proquest.com> wrote:
  > Well, that's not really a surprise, is it? If you
  > do CACHE first, and
  > cache all the tables blocks, then do NOCACHE, Oracle
  > isn't going to
  > immediately explicitly flush those blocks. I'd
  > expect that as demand
  > on the buffer cache increased, the blocks would age
  > out. Oracle almost always
  > follows the "delay any work I can till later, cause
  > with any luck, I won't
  > have to do it later, either!" rule.
  >
  > If you set the table to NOCACHE and then try doing
  > other activity which will
  > impose a load on the buffer cache, I'd expect to see
  > (at least some of) those
  > blocks age out.
  >
  > -Mark
  >
  >
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Ravi Kulkarni [mailto:nandagokul_at_yahoo.com]
  > Sent: Wed 12/31/2003 6:34 PM
  > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
  > Cc:
  > Subject: Re: Cache a table
  > Hi Richard,
  >
  > Did you test the effect of Nocache after caching ?
  > What we noticed is "cache followed by nocache" is
  > not
  > making the blocks to be flushed out. This has been
  > that way for months now in a production database of
  > ours.
  >
  > Thx,
  > Ravi.
  >
  

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Bobak, Mark
  INET: Mark.Bobak_at_il.proquest.com

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Jan 02 2004 - 12:34:29 CST