Re: 64k blocks vs 4k blocks
From: Lisa Roderick <roderick_at_eps.enet.dec.com>
Date: 1995/09/07
Message-ID: <42ntvg$54o_at_nntpd.lkg.dec.com>#1/1
Date: 1995/09/07
Message-ID: <42ntvg$54o_at_nntpd.lkg.dec.com>#1/1
In article <1995Sep1.173036.1_at_cbr.hhcs.gov.au>, pihlab_at_cbr.hhcs.gov.au
says...
>
>In article <420fsp$1v2_at_pipe3.nyc.pipeline.com>, qmick_at_nyc.pipeline.com
(Michael Joseph) writes:
>>
>> We are experimenting with moving our (almost) read-only data base from a
4K
>> block size to a 64K block size.
>
>Are you talking about database blocks OR the block size that your disk device
>uses?
>
>I didn't think Oracle allowed database blocks larger than 16K in size; except
>on their soon to be release VLM databases.
>
Right, except that Oracle on Digital UNIX currently support 32K database blocks. It's shipping. No other platform has it.
-- Lisa Roderick Applications Systems Engineering Performance Group Digital Equipment Corporation Nashua, NH lisa.roderick_at_zko.mts.dec.comReceived on Thu Sep 07 1995 - 00:00:00 CEST