Oracle-L: RE: missed Anjo's webcast..

From: Jesse, Rich <Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 14:28:36 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.004AFF96.20020808142836@fatcity.com>

Hi Cary,

This comment made me think. I agree in most cases, but what about a very small DB situation where the buffer cache is larger than all the tables and indexes combined (~300MB)? This is for a 3rd party tool of which we have no control over the SQL. I sized the buffer cache as a guesstimate of load on concurrent usage in the near future. As it turns out, the amount of data in the DB seems to be relatively low, so theoretically, all accessed data and indexes could be buffered.

My kneejerk is that seems somehow wrong, but I can't think of a downside offhand. Care to comment?

Always willing to learn,

Rich Jesse                           System/Database Administrator
Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com              Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 5:05 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L

If you have a really high database buffer cache hit ratio (>99%), then you almost certainly have inefficient SQL in your application.

Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
--

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--

Author: Jesse, Rich
INET: Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------

To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). Received on Thu Aug 08 2002 - 17:28:36 CDT