"damorgan" <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message
news:3C9A5A96.158F862E_at_exesolutions.com...
> See Connor's response. You are mixing apples and oranges.
>
> If you are trying to minimize storage ... look at your PCTFREE and PCTUSED
> parameters. That is where most of the waste likely will exist.
>
> Daniel Morgan.
>
>
> Mike F wrote:
>
> > >Why do you care? Haven't you got any "real" tuning issues to deal with?
> >
> > >And what has the number of blocks got to do with your stated goal
> > >which is pinning the table?
> >
> > >Daniel Morgana
> >
> > Yes, we need to care.
> >
> > If it is only 16 blocks, we can keep it in the keep buffer_pool, if it
> > is 128 blocks, some table even with 1000 blocks while with only 300
> > rows,we need to do import/export to reorganize the table and then keep
> > them in keep buffer_pool.
> >
> > Disk is almost unlimited but memory is.. That is why I need to know
> > whether it is oly 16 blocks in the keep buffer_pool,or the total 128
> > block will go into the keep buffer_pool.
> >
> > I only assigned 400 blocks to the keep buffer, with 128 block tables, I
> > can only keep 3 tables. With 16 blocks table, I can put 20 small
> > tables in the keep buffer.
> >
> > Any suggestions?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent by dbadba62 from hotmail subpart from com
> > This is a spam protected message. Please answer with reference header.
> > Posted via http://www.usenet-replayer.com/cgi/content/new
>
Received on Thu Mar 21 2002 - 20:31:55 CST
