RE: 32K block size tablespace for indexes

From: Yavor Ivanov <>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:56:50 +0200
Message-ID: <BD17E2E69E17C64A9684C940EB580E0301118CA9B718_at_stemodc1.stemo.local>

	Tom Kyte wrote in his book that multiple blocksizes are intended only for Transportable Tablespace between databases with different blocksizes, period. 
	I, personally, agree with this. Of course, there might be some extreme cases on databases with mixed workloads, where there are some OLAP-like  parts and some extreme OLTP parts. But in most cases the administration overhead is much bigger than the performance benefit. You can easily end up with over- or undersized db_XXk_cache_size and the database can't do anything about it. Then the performance will be better in some parts of the day and worse later on. 
	But... never say never. Maybe your DB is that rare case where having multiple blocksizes helps a lot

Yavor Ivanov

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

From: [] On Behalf Of hrishy Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:36 AM To: Niall Litchfield
Subject: Re: 32K block size tablespace for indexes

Hi Niall

Thanks for the reply after going through the thread its sounds like the pereceived benfit by moving to a large block size must be thoroughly tested its no gaurantee that performance will improve.

I was wundering why did oracle come out with multiple block size feature considering that in my whole carrer as a DBA i have used large block size only for BLOB column storage and nothing else.

Is exadata the reason for large blocksize ?



i0zX+n{+i^ Received on Thu Jan 29 2009 - 07:56:50 CST

Original text of this message