Re: Index compression vs. table compression

From: Noons <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: 4 Jan 2005 13:41:47 -0800
Message-ID: <1104874907.958717.321570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

Richard Foote wrote:

>

> But if the *blocks* are quickly reused by new inserted rows from a
> subsequent transaction to replace the deleted rows because the
pctused
> setting was set appropriately, then perhaps the RECYCLE is not the
right
> pool.

I wonder if that would still happen nowadays. With ASSM, would pctused still be relevant in terms of allowing block reuse to happen within a usable timeframe for the cache?

Another thing: I do recall a number of hidden parameters in early 8 releases to control the behaviour of the KEEP, DEFAULT and RECYCLE LRU priority algorithm. Are those still available or is it all "automagic" now?

> It's the reuse of blocks not rows that's important.

Sure. I just used the term "rows" to explain what happens within Peoplesoft. But of course rows cannot exist outside of a block, in a normal table. Received on Tue Jan 04 2005 - 15:41:47 CST