Re: Oracle block size - OS block size

Who cares about wasting 4K, or even 7.9K? Even multiplied 1000 times, that's a mammoth 7.9M (unless my maths is even worse than I thought). Even with 10000 such small tables, you'd potentially be wasting less than a Gig. You honestly want to trade performance against that amount of disk space?

HJR

--
=============================!!=============================
The views expressed are my own only, and definitely NOT those of Oracle
Corporation
=============================!!=============================


"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.