Re: Memory Limit Imposed on Oracle by Windows?

On Apr 23, 11:38 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> dbaplusp..._at_hotmail.com wrote:
> > Of couuse there are some overheads which you point out, but how much
> > CPU ovethead one is talking vs disk based
> > access. which takes mili seconds . CPU based access takes micro
> > secinds. Do the math for your application.
>
> A lot of people have done the testing. And what you assume is not
> necessarily the case.
>
> Here is one example among many:http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:5...
>
> > Those people who advise you to limit memory to 640K or stay away from
> > large buffer cache are plain wrong. Why there are in memory dataase,
> > why Oracle has developed/acquired TEN TIMES database, Why in TPC
> > benchamrks, they use hundreads of GB"s of buffer cache.
>
> The reason TimesTen is so fast has little to do with what you assume.
> It is not just a question of throwing a lot of RAM at the problem. You
> should study the underlying concepts and architecture before trying to
> draw a line between the Oracle RDBMS and TimesTen. They are totally
> different beasts.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damor..._at_x.washington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)
> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org

I read a presentataion on Times Ten on your web site and it clearly points out differences in memory access and disk access. I know, there are many things to Times Ten, but getting away from disk access is one of its main principle.

Throwisng RAM is not always the answer but making good use of RAM improves performance, that is my point. 64 bit Oracle is a good thing. Received on Mon Apr 23 2007 - 12:06:54 CDT