Re: pinning a table in memory

And the second you try putting a 6 million record table into the keep pool, kiss goodbye to whatever remnants of performance you thought you had.

Cache is for sissy Oracle 7 users. It has no use in an 8i or 9i database. None. Whatsoever. (And it didn't do too much in 7, either).

You can't "pin" a table in memory, ever. And for a 7 million row table, you shouldn't try.

You need to get down and dirty as to precisely WHAT is making the access to it "a tad slow". No indexes? Lots of physical I/O? Parse time? Crap hardware? Naff operating system?

Get your statspack report, pipe it to www.oraperf.com, and report back. Then we can take it further.

Regards
HJR "Sybrand Bakker" <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:pm8duugc290g580an3qps9q6tto792kisq_at_4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:58:40 -0000, "David Sharples"
> <david.sharples3_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >We have a largeish table (6 million records) and the queries we have on
this
> >table are a tad slow and the disk is the bottleneck.
> >
> >We have considered putting the table in cache (alter table xyz cache)
> >
> >Was wondering if this would help very much seeing as though the indexes
for
> >this table is still held on disk.
> >
> >Any opinions??
> >
> >Thanks
> >
>
> cache only comes into play with full table scans.
> Blocks being read during full table scans are always put at the lower
> end of the LRU list (so they are paged out immediately), with cache
> you can avoid.
> The cache mechanism has been replaced by the keep buffer pool in 8.0,
> and the keep buffer pool works for all types of queries.
>
> Hth
>
>
> Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
>
> To reply remove -verwijderdit from my e-mail address
Received on Fri Nov 29 2002 - 04:07:28 CST