Many. I have several 3rd party applications that have many tables like that.
--
Terry Dykstra
Canadian Forest Oil Ltd.
"Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:3b29c6a0$0$15029$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net...
> What sort of real world apps create tables less than 8k in size?
>
>
> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> Audit Commission UK
> "Yong Huang" <yong321_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b3cb12d6.0106141012.464e84a2_at_posting.google.com...
> > I know very well Steve Adams' suggestion on this. But in some cases a
> > smaller block size makes more sense. For instance, when you create a
> > database in which you have many small tables, so small that every
> > table takes space far less than 8k and they grow very slowly. From the
> > space usage point of view, you can choose 4k or even 2k. Loss in
> > performance due to extra I/O on garbage bits and bytes is an issue but
> > may be a small one.
> >
> > BTW, has anyone seen a benchmark on different db_block_sizes? I
> > remember somebody posted a message on an Oracle Applications mailing
> > list claiming better performance using 16k block size than 8k as a
> > result of some benchmark test.
> >
> > Yong Huang
> > yong321_at_yahoo.com
> >
> > "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr_at_www.com> wrote in message
news:<3b287231_at_news.iprimus.com.au>...
> > > 8K Oracle blocks on a Unix platform, and don't even think about it.
See
> > > Steve Adams' article entitled 'Why a Large Database Block Size' at
> > > ixora.com.au for an explanation of why this one is a no-brainer.
>
>
Received on Fri Jun 15 2001 - 10:11:35 CDT
