Re: Daniel Morgan and Syband Bakker

In article <a9bhhu0oegia7dpnjb7hmilej8o0k3cqjl_at_4ax.com>, postbus_at_sybrandb.demon-verwijderdit.nl wrote:

>>>>First of all it strikes me that so many people are incapable to grasp
>>>>the correct orthography of the word 'tuning', with *one* n.
>>>>Secondly, if you only think a *little*, you could know a
>>>>sort_area_size of 1 G for a system with 2 G is clearly outrageous and
>>>>ridiculous. Sort_area_size is a per process limit, if you are not
>>>>running dedicated server the sort_area_siz is NOT in the SGA, so
>>>>evidently, the disk lamp in your server must be continually on,
>>>>because you force the server to page *all the time*.
>>
>>Sybrand, if you are NOT "running dedicated server" (you're running MTS?) and
>>using shared server processes, then the sort area is in the UGA, which IS in
>>the SGA. If you ARE using dedicated server processes, the sort area is in the
>
>>PGA and not the SGA.
>
>Why are you nitpicking? Your statement doesn't contradict my statement
>does it?

Yeah, it certainly does contradict your (possibly unintentional mis-)statement that the sort area is not in the SGA when "not running dedicated server," implying MTS and shared server processes. In such a case, the sort area IS in the SGA--the UGA, specifically, which is either in the large pool or shared pool. If that's nitpicking, my apologies. Perhaps the crassness and tone of of your response, particularly in the first three lines, made it easier to do.

Your overall point that a 1G sort_area_size setting is "ridiculous" is unquestionable. And your INTENTION(?) to state, that the sort area isn't shared amongst other sessions--that sort_area_size is a per SESSION setting--would also be valid... if that's what you meant? Received on Wed Jun 26 2002 - 10:45:11 CDT