From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Wed Apr 28 09:13:49 2004 Return-Path: Received: from air189.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3SEDYY11848 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:13:44 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air189.startdedicated.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3SEDO611788 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:13:34 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 2BF1F72CF3D; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17100-20; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 7A32172CE71; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:04:33 -0500 (EST) Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:03:21 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: oracle-l@freelists.org Delivered-To: oracle-l@freelists.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 678C072CDF3 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:03:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16682-08 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:03:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from web50401.mail.yahoo.com (web50401.mail.yahoo.com [206.190.38.66]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with SMTP id CE62872CD8F for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:03:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040428140601.49075.qmail@web50401.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.101.206.182] by web50401.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 07:06:01 PDT Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 07:06:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Barbara Baker Subject: Re: FW: Why "Separating Data and Indexes improves performance" is a myth? To: oracle-l@freelists.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 3943 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: barbarabbaker@yahoo.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: oracle-l@freelists.org X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org Not only is it not in the dumpster, I'm currently in the process of trying to upgrade this piece of crap to 9i. This is the horror story about the upgrade to 8i where we hit 2 bugs and our performance went down the tubes. (and oracle refused to address bugs, even tho we were under support.) exp/imp won't work. we might entertain ideas about unloading/reloading the entire databases. (In my spare time...) So the block size is STILL 4068. Ok, so the vendor who wrote this gem created a block size of 4068. (Dan: you remember these bozos?) Their rationale, which they placed in the init file: ############################################################################### # The db_block_size is set at 9 multiples of 512 bytes(OpenVMS block size) # This is to accomodate the WO table. The average row length of the WO table is # 900 bytes. A 4608 parameter allows 5 rows to be stored in a single Oracle bloc k # Do not change without consulting (I removed the vendor name) In addition to the basic stupidity of the 4608 block size, they did not take into account either (1) new columns in the table, nor (2) space required in the header. So I'm wondering . . . When we hit either 9i or 10g, will the block size cause this thing to finally implode??? Inquiring minds want to know . . . --- Tim Gorman wrote: > Barb Baker: Do you want to tell everyone about the > 3rd-party COTS > application that demanded DB_BLOCK_SIZE = 4608? And > the rationale behind > that number? > > Hopefully it's been migrated to a dumpster by now, > right? > > > ------ Forwarded Message > From: "Jonathan Lewis" > Reply-To: oracle-l@freelists.org > Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:32:36 +0100 > To: > Subject: Re: Why "Separating Data and Indexes > improves performance" is a > myth? > > > I believe Stephan Haisley has built a 9i database > with a 7.5K block size (not for production reasons, > of course). > > There is an argument for using a (slightly) unusual > size > block if your main purpose is to handles large > numbers > of uniformly sized LOBs. Whether it would work or > not > is something to be investigated. > > Regards > > Jonathan Lewis > http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk > > The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ > http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html > > April 2004 Iceland > http://www.index.is/oracleday.php > June 2004 UK - Optimising Oracle Seminar > July 2004 USA West Coast, Optimising Oracle Seminar > August 2004 Charlotte NC, Optimising Oracle Seminar > September 2004 USA East Coast, Optimising Oracle > Seminar > September2004 UK - Optimising Oracle Seminar > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jacques Kilchoer" > > To: > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 7:11 PM > Subject: RE: Why "Separating Data and Indexes > improves performance" is a > myth? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > Paul Drake > >=20 > > I would think that non-power of 2 block sizes > would > > subject the actor with ORA-600s beyond their > wildest > > dreams. > > I don't think you can even create a tablespace with > a blocksize that's = > not a power of 2 with Oracle 9.0 or higher, but I > can tell you that an = > 8.1 database with a blocksize of 3K and a locally > managed autoallocate = > tablespace makes for some amusing ORA-600s. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: > http://www.orafaq.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe send email to: > oracle-l-request@freelists.org > put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. > -- > Archives are at > http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ > FAQ is at > http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: > http://www.orafaq.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe send email to: > oracle-l-request@freelists.org > put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. > -- > Archives are at > http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ > FAQ is at > http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html > ----------------------------------------------------------------- __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. -- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------