Re: Newbie's Oracle 9i impression: it sucks

"SQLJoe" <sqljoe_at_aol.com> wrote in message news:20020520171940.09238.00000763_at_mb-mq.aol.com...
> >Also architecturally-related is SQL Server 2000's insistence on 8Kb
blocks
> >("pages" if you prefer). That's performance limiting. Also it has a
problem
> >with long-running transactions (as does Informix amongst others) because
the
> >same mechanism is used for both transaction recovery and transaction
> >rollback. If your transaction takes up more than half the log, it
> >automatically fails, because it needs as much room to roll the
transaction
> >back as it took to generate it in the first place. Oracle's separation of
> >redo from rollback means that this simply isn't an issue for it.
>
>
> I bet this is one of the 20-30% of features in Oracle that most Oracle DBA
and
> Developers never end up changing or using. Chaning the page (or block)
size
> rarely makes much difference. But I will admit Oracle allows you to
configure
> the page (or block) size while MS SQL does not (set at 8KB).

We have databases in production with 2, 4 and 8k block sizes. There might well be a 16k one knocking around as well.

Moreover in 9i you are able to use multiple block sizes within the same database. If no-one ever varied the block size would that development have been made? I doubt it.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
*****************************************
Please include version and platform
and SQL where applicable
It makes life easier and increases the
likelihood of a good answer

******************************************