Re: Sequence cache parameter

Whoops - we're actually using 2, which I thought was the default. The developer who came up with 2 no longer works here, so I'm not sure how that number was orignally derived.

Bottom line is I'd like to learn enough to have some context to weigh recommendations for changing the cache parameter.

--Doug

Philippe <parnaud_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7nn9v5$9ph$1_at_concorde.ctp.com...
> tell your DBA that 20 is the default value for cache parameter.
>
>
> Doug Smith wrote in message ...
> >Greetings,
> >
> >I work with an application that uses sequences numbers to generate
primary
> >key values for the tables in the database.
> >
> >Recently, the DBA I work with told me that using the default cache
> parameter
> >on the sequences was evil, and that we should use 20 instead of the
> default.
> >
> >When I asked "why 20?", I was informed that he was the DBA, and I should
> not
> >question his judgement.
> >
> >My question is what criteria is used to size the sequence cache
parameter,
> >and how do we measure the effects of changing the parameter? Also, what
are
> >the issues/tradeoffs with changing the cache parameter.
> >
> >Note that when profiling our app, the code that accesses the sequence
> >numbers does not register as taking a significant amount of time.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >--Doug
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Wed Jul 28 1999 - 11:37:13 CDT