Re: Oracle Keep Pool
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <7d08ece3-8715-4baa-83b2-0c5711182b2c_at_2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 25, 12:55 pm, Charles Hooper <hooperc2..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> This thread starts out describing memory limits on 32 bit Windows and
> eventually switches to a discussion of the DEFAULT, KEEP, and RECYCLE
> pool - including a test case I provided a couple years ago (might be
> interesting to re-run the test case again to see if there are faults
> in the test case).http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.oracle.server/browse_th...
Thanks, I had completely forgotten about that.
> In this thread, after prompting by Jonathan Lewis, I noticed that the
> number of blocks cached by the test table and index gradually
> decreased (when checked every 60 seconds) once the query completed
> (the database instance was otherwise idle) - might be interesting to
> see if the same behavior is present when the objects are located in
> the KEEP pool:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.oracle.server/browse_th...
My compliments to the chef! :-)
Yes, this Oracle thing has gotten quite amazing. All we have to do is figure out how to explain to people that rule of thumbs (especially percentages of what to KEEP) are a mistake, as a rule of thumb.
jg
-- _at_home.com is bogus. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Database/US-Senators-Ask-EC-to-Sanction-Oracle-Buyout-of-Sun-457771/?kc=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RSS%2Ftech+(eWEEK+Technology+News)Received on Wed Nov 25 2009 - 16:13:45 CST