Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Cache a table

RE: Cache a table

From: <Jared.Still_at_radisys.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 09:54:24 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.005DB844.20040102095424@fatcity.com>



This thread started on 10/21/2003, with a *lot* of comments.

No time to read it all, so I'll just work with what appears here.

Have considered that this table is simply used a lot and remains
in the cache because it belongs there due to frequent access?

SQL with high LIO's?

Jared




Ravi Kulkarni <nandagokul@yahoo.com>
Sent by: ml-errors@fatcity.com

 01/02/2004 07:59 AM
 Please respond to ORACLE-L

       
        To:        Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L@fatcity.com>
        cc:        
        Subject:        RE: Cache a table



That was what we expected. This is a highly active
PeopleSoft Database. Will it take several months to
push those blocks out ? Though not true, it appears
the nocache had no effect at all ..

-Ravi.

--- "Bobak, Mark" <Mark.Bobak@il.proquest.com> wrote:
> Well, that's not really a surprise, is it?  If you
> do CACHE first, and
> cache all the tables blocks, then do NOCACHE, Oracle
> isn't going to
> immediately explicitly flush those blocks.  I'd
> expect that as demand
> on the buffer cache increased, the blocks would age
> out.  Oracle almost always
> follows the "delay any work I can till later, cause
> with any luck, I won't
> have to do it later, either!" rule.
>
> If you set the table to NOCACHE and then try doing
> other activity which will
> impose a load on the buffer cache, I'd expect to see
> (at least some of) those
> blocks age out.  
>
> -Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:                 Ravi Kulkarni [mailto:nandagokul@yahoo.com]
> Sent:                 Wed 12/31/2003 6:34 PM
> To:                 Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Cc:                
> Subject:                 Re: Cache a table
> Hi Richard,
>
> Did you test the effect of Nocache after caching ?
> What we noticed is "cache followed by nocache" is
> not
> making the blocks to be flushed out. This has been
> that way for months now in a production database of
> ours.
>
> Thx,
> Ravi.
>


-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: 
  INET: Jared.Still_at_radisys.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_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 Fri Jan 02 2004 - 11:54:24 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US