RE: Db_block_checking (11.2)
From: Jonathan Lewis <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:07:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CE70217733273F49A8A162EE074F64D901E5C70F_at_exmbx06.thus.corp>
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] on behalf of Hemant K Chitale [hemantkchitale_at_gmail.com] Sent: 07 November 2014 00:08
To: ORACLE-L
Subject: Db_block_checking (11.2)
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:07:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CE70217733273F49A8A162EE074F64D901E5C70F_at_exmbx06.thus.corp>
I don't think your result is particularly surprising - one of the guys at dbi services produced some startling figures a couple of years ago: http://www.dbi-services.com/index.php/blog/entry/protecting-an-oracle-database-from-block-corruption
But I think it can vary enormously with the nature of the work.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com
_at_jloracle
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] on behalf of Hemant K Chitale [hemantkchitale_at_gmail.com] Sent: 07 November 2014 00:08
To: ORACLE-L
Subject: Db_block_checking (11.2)
What is the observed overhead of db_block_checking=TRUE (FULL) when running an UPDATE (1 to 3 columns) of almost all the rows of a table ? I see a 30% increase in CPU time.
Sent from my smart phone.
Hemant K Chitale
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Nov 07 2014 - 14:07:43 CET