Re: db_block_buffer

You got a bit of an attitude there (not just seen in this post, but most of your others).
Geez dude, relax a little, and take yourself a little less seriously.

"Daniel A. Morgan" wrote:

> > Oracle 8.0.5 Solaris 2.6
> > I"ve recently been told (by a database engineer and upper management)
> > to increase our db's db_block_buffers from 15000 to 30000!
> > I've tried kicking and screaming, tried to explain that you just don't
> > randomly start doubling such parameters because the hit ratio is 75%.
> > They seem to think it's going to solve all performance problems, but I
> > know deep down
> > it's just going to cause more issues.
> >
> > Just wanting to rant.
> >
> > TIA
>
> In the time it took you to rant you could have done it. And what would the
> down-side have been? You change the parameter, you benchmark the system,
> and you go on with your life. Personally, I agree with the others that the
> change suggested is far too conservative.
>
> If all other things are equal (decent SQL with the right indexes), the
> fastest way to improve the performance of an Oracle database is to grab
> every bit of RAM on the system, and if you run out of RAM ... add more and
> grab that too.
>
> Dan Morgan
Received on Wed Dec 27 2000 - 16:57:06 CST