Re: Changing block size

From: Jared Still <>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:30:42 -0800
Message-ID: <>

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Stephens, Chris <
> wrote:

> Alternatively, I think db file multi block read count may simulate a
> larger block size.
> Please explain.

One drawback to fiddling with DBFMBRC is that execution plans that previously
worked fine may suddenly become full table scans when FTS is undesirable.


> *From:* [mailto:
>] *On Behalf Of *Dennis Williams
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 04, 2008 9:06 AM
> *To:*
> *Cc:*
> *Subject:* Re: Changing block size
> Eugene,
> As you've probably understood from your replies, DB_BLOCK_SIZE is the one
> parameter that can't be changed after the database is created (there are
> more options with 10g). Perhaps if you stated why you want to change this,
> we can provide you more useful suggestions. Often people assume stuff
> like by doubling the block size their performance will double. Also, this is
> a pretty old database version, and not the latest Windows server version.
> I'm always reluctant to make substantial changes on something that
> old. Might be a better idea to migrate the database to recent versions.
> Dennis Williams
> This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
> responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.

Received on Thu Dec 04 2008 - 11:30:42 CST

Original text of this message