Typo on recycle pool sizing or not?

From: Simon Gottesman <sgotte_at_prodigy-nospamplease.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 01:00:54 GMT
Message-ID: <abzm7.2434$D%4.166996128@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>

Did Jason Couchman make a mistake in the following matter concerning the proper sizing of the recycle pool of the buffer cache or not? (What follows is not an exact quotation from chapter 18 of the book "Oracle8 Certified Professional..." but an extremely close paraphrasing):

Step 1 to tune recycle pool: Assign an object to be placed in the recycle pool with "alter <object> <name> storage (buffer_pool recycle)".

Step 2: Run the SQL statements accessing the object with SQL_Trace=true
Step 3: Process trace file with TKPROF
Step 4: Look at DISK column from the output file for total number of db

blocks read from disk
Step 5: Repeat steps 2 through 4 with the object taken out from the recycle pool
Step 6: Compare the number under the DISK column from the first run with the number under the same column from the second run Step 7: "If the first run (with the object in recycle pool) produced a higher number, you should decrease the size chosen for your recycle pool, because Oracle is eliminating and reloading buffers before the SQL statement has a chance to finish."

My question is with the part in step 7 that I quoted exactly. If the recycle pool is "eliminating and reloading buffers before the SQL statement has a chance to finish", shouldn't you increase its size so that the SQL statement has more room in the recycle pool to finish? Did he mean to write increase instead of decrease or am I missing something here? Any help is, as always, greatly appreciated, Simon Gottesman Received on Sat Sep 08 2001 - 20:00:54 CDT