Re: Bigger block sizes

From: Lothar Flatz <l.flatz_at_bluewin.ch>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 21:03:54 +0200
Message-ID: <560D839A.2010408_at_bluewin.ch>

In most tests a block size > 8k has no advatages. There are some benefits of bigger block size however. Depending on the data the compression ratio could be better. If you have very long rows (> 256 columns) a bigger block can allow to store those blocks more efficiently.

On 01.10.2015 17:12, Orlando L wrote:
> "oracle really only tests on the 8k block size": interesting! They
> claim the product supports other blocksizes too!
>
> There must be places where 8K blocks may not be big enough to store a
> row, even at 1% PCTFREE.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Andrew Kerber
> <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com <mailto:andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I haven't seen any advantages from using any larger block sizes. I
> also saw a Tom Kyte article a while back that said they are only
> intended for use with transportable table spaces, and oracle
> really only tests on the 8k block size.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Sep 30, 2015, at 4:29 PM, Orlando L <oralrnr_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:oralrnr_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > List,
> >
> > Does anyone in the list use non default blocksize of greater
> than 8K for your oracle DBs; if so, is it for warehousing/OLAP
> type applications? What advantages do you get with them; any
> disadvantage.
> >
> > Orlando.
>
>

-- 





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

Received on Thu Oct 01 2015 - 21:03:54 CEST