Re: db file sequential read - again

Quoting Wolfgang Breitling <breitliw_at_centrexcc.com>:

>
> What is your rationale of putting "hot indexes" into their own pool?
> What are you trying to accomplish with this?
>

Thanks for the info Wolfgang.

I guess I was just thinking that if high-usage index blocks were in their own pool they wouldn't be aged out of the main (DEFAULT) pool. If they were in the pool then they would not have to be read from disk. I guess this would have to be tempered with how often the indexes are modified.

In typing this response though I see the error in my thinking....if they are hot enough then they shouldn't be aged out of the default pool. So segregation is not going to help.

Would simply caching them in the default pool accomplish the same thing then? Or simply increasing the size of the main pool? I have 16Gb of memory and the buffer cache is currently taking up 6Gb.

BTW...haven't had a chance to look at STATSPACK yet. TIMED_STATISTICS was set to false when I arrived last week and scheduling a bounce is problematic. So I'm looking at 'live waits' right now until I can gather some more useful info.

Cheers

JH

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