RE: db_file_multiblock_read_count and performance

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_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Khedr, Waleed
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:32 PM
To: Oracle-L_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: db_file_multiblock_read_count and performance

What did you expect to see in 10046 file?

-----Original Message-----
From: ryan_gaffuri_at_comcast.net [mailto:ryan_gaffuri_at_comcast.net]=20 Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:21 PM To: Oracle-L_at_freelists.org
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?

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l