Re: DB Buffer Cache Size

On 21 Aug 2004 06:12:20 -0700, don_at_burleson.cc (Don Burleson) wrote:

>As some would say, LET'S PROVE IT!
>
>For example, why do ALL the 10g "world record" benchmarks use over 100
>gig data caches? I worked with one of these TPCC benchmarks and ran
>repeatable timings. Up to the point where the working set was cached,
>the benefit of a larger data cache outweighed the LIO overhead.

Mr. Burleson, am I right in saying that when you can reduce the I/O of a particular statement to 10 percent by simply tuning the statement, you shouldn't do that, but instead you should increase the buffer cache?
If so, would you please explain why I have a database running at a BCHR of 99.9 and performance is still abysmal? How would you resolve that, simply crank up memory further so I can cache the entire database, knowing the database runs on Win2k. You are not selling that philosophy to others, don't you? Or might that be the reason why the performance of US commercially available software (I won't mention vendors) is often so abysmal, and the only thing you can do is throwing memory at the problem? Because your fellow Americans actually subscribe to your 'More is better Religion'?

--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA