Re: db block size, too big wasting buffer?

In article <1025429320.18134.1.nnrp-14.9e984b29_at_news.demon.co.uk>, you said (and I quote):

> Alas, you CAN "waste data buffers" by changing block
> sizes. Fortunately, you probably have to be short on
> memory, have to have a special case application to
> do so, and then have to have snotty users who complain
> about minor fluctuations in performance.

Ah! But then, as M$ says: "just add memory"! :-D

>
> NOTE - obviously I've stripped this description to a minimum
> to indicate the flavour of the problem.
>

Of course. Indexes being the obvious. You won't get the last 1000 blocks (or 4000) and a scatter of 1000 older rows (presumably in different blocks) without using indexes. Or else you have partitioned (or keep rowids in your pocket). ;-)

Still, a good point. I'm trying to figure out what the impact with indexing would be in a situation like that.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam