Re: Odd statement in docs regarding block size

dbuckingham <member_at_dbforums.com> wrote in message news:<3cf471bd$1_at_usenetgateway.com>...
> HJR comments that in NT/2000 he always sets the DB_BLOCK_SIZE to be 16k
> and others back that it should be either the same as or a multiple of
> the os_block_size. In NT/2000 I believe that the default is 8k, so is
> there a real need to set them at 16k?
>
> Basically I am after some clarification as to how I should set them in
> NT/2000 for currently we have them set to 8k and i want to know if this
> is optimal?
>
> Any comments.

Your Block Size should depend on the Application Type You ar using. In case of an OLTP Application 4K or 8K will do a lot of good to the database throughput. In a Database that caters to OLAP/ DW Applications it is better to keep it at 16 or 32K[not sure if 32 is possible in NT].

This Difference arises Because of the way Data is requested in the Applications. In an OLTP Applications it will be More Of Insert/Updates and deletes and if they are not directed at the same block it wil reduce contention. But in the case of a DW Application It is Huge Amount of data that is selected for analysis and if this data is packed into a Few number of blocks the number of blocks visited by Oracle will be less and hence the response time will really increase.

HTH Regards,
Ganesh R Received on Wed May 29 2002 - 08:31:29 CDT