Re: DB Buffer Cache Size

Niall Litchfield wrote:

> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message
> news:412753cb$0$25143$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>> Maybe when you have 100GB of RAM to throw at your caches (and a disk
>> subsystem to match) you can afford it. Most people can't.
>
> Arguable I'd say, given the overhead that this would generate.

The "Maybe" was my attempt to be polite about it!

When you have $6 million to spend on 700GB of RAM and several hundred CPUs, I suppose you can indeed cope with whatever overheads Oracle throws your way.

The relevance of that to real people in the real world, however, is more than a little questionable.

I think Xho said it all with his space shuttle/Greyhound comment.

Regards
HJR
>I'm not at
> all sure that allocating that RAM to PGA might not be more appropriate for
> most apps that deal with stupidly large datasets
>
>> > db_cache_size = 4000M
>> > db_recycle_cache_size = 500M
>> > db_8k_cache_size = 200M
>> > db_16k_cache_size = 4056M
>> > db_2k_cache_size = 35430M
>
> The sum of the above is 44186M or 43.1G. I'm almost sure that this is
> 1.1gb too much.
  Received on Sun Aug 22 2004 - 17:22:40 CDT