Return-Path: Received: from ensim.rackshack.net (root@localhost) by orafaq.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1EKRfB24686 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:27:41 -0600 X-ClientAddr: 209.68.248.164 Received: from newsfeed.cts.com (newsfeed.cts.com [209.68.248.164]) by ensim.rackshack.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1EKReQ24681 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:27:40 -0600 Received: from fatcity.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by newsfeed.cts.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with UUCP id JAA87602; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:10:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by fatcity.com (26-Feb-2001/v1.0g-b72/bab) via UUCP id 0054DB61; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:09:18 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:09:18 -0800 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L X-Comment: Oracle RDBMS Community Forum X-Sender: Charlie_Mengler@HomeDepot.com Sender: root@fatcity.com Reply-To: ORACLE-L@fatcity.com Errors-To: ML-ERRORS@fatcity.com From: Charlie_Mengler@HomeDepot.com Subject: Re: 2k and 8k block size Organization: Fat City Network Services, San Diego, California X-ListServer: v1.0g, build 72; ListGuru (c) 1996-2001 Bruce A. Bergman Precedence: bulk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There was a presentation at the recent HOTSOS conference which showed a performance gain by placing indexes in tablespaces with a "LARGE" blocksize. HTH & YMMV HAND! Michael Fontana et> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: 2k and 8k block size root@fatcity.com 02/10/2003 01:59 PM Please respond to ORACLE-L Reading my oracle 9i new features , there is now something called: Multiple Database Block Size Support. In other words, it is no longer necessary to commit to a single block size for your database. I'd suggest looking into this, as it may now be possible to test using different blocksizes for different tablespaces. At 01:04 PM 2/10/2003 -0800, Rajesh.Rao@jpmchase.com wrote: An 8.0.6 ops database being migrated to 9i RAC database on Solaris 8. The 8.0 database had an block size of 2k. Multiblock read count is 8. This is an OLTP database, all transactions almost always work on a single row. None of the row sizes exceed the block size. Hardly any chained or migrated rows. Now, during this migration, it was recommended to change the block size to 8k. And my concerns are: 1. Would this not increase pinging across the instances? With 9i and interconnect and cache fusion, this should be reduced considerably, so, is it a mute point? 2. This could alter the execution plans of some statements. Would some, maybe a very few of the statements not prefer a full table scan? Any other positive or negative effects of this increase in block size? Thanks One Paranoid DBA -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: Rajesh.Rao@jpmchase.com Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru@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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: Charlie_Mengler@HomeDepot.com Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru@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).