Re: 9i multi cache buffer

"Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message news:M44C9.79071$g9.222107_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:WCSB9.78569$g9.221206_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> >
> > "Paul Brewer" <paul_at_paul.brewers.org.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3dd7f53d_1_at_mk-nntp-
> > > All of which is why, when people ask "What block size should I use?",
> > > I answer:
> > >
> > > a) Insufficient data. What are your objectives/OS platform/DB
> > > version/application characteristics?
> > >
> >
> > Too many degrees of freedom. You need only ask "OS Platform".
>
> Hi Howard,
>
> OS Platform => Solaris, with raw devices.
>

16K.

Regards
HJR
> Correct block size is ...
>
> Cheers
>
> Richard
>
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > > or
> > >
> > > b) It depends
> > >
> >
> > ...on the O/S platform.
> >
> > > or (failing everything else)
> > >
> > > 8K.
> >
> > Hmmm. It will do. Unless you're on AIX or Linux or NT.
> >
> > :-)
> > HJR
> >
> >
> > > Over-simplification, I know, but it answers the question.
> > >
> > > In any case, in real life it's usually the crappy SQL that makes the
> > > difference.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Mon Nov 18 2002 - 12:54:21 CST