Re: What would be faster BEQ or TCP to Localhost?

It probably ought to be BEQ, but really you have to test it on your own platform with your own application.

The main performance difference may come from the 'pipe' between the two foreground and shadow - tcp defaults to about 1500 bytes on 'remote' links, but is often 4K or 8K on loopback; BEQ usually uses the local memory page size which is often 4K or 8K anyway but can be 32K.

Then - you can set the SDU and TDU on
the listener.ora and tnsnames.ora to tell Oracle how big the pipeline is.

Then it's only useful to have a big pipeline if you have a lot of data passing back and fore in large chunks (e.g. array fetches).

--

Jonathan Lewis
Yet another Oracle-related web site: www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk

oamador_at_obipr.jnj.com wrote in message <7m3e8b$r7e$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>...
>How should one configure the protocol in easy config for an application
>that runs on the same server where the database is running. Should it
>use Bequeath or TCP and localhost for the server address? Which one is
>faster? Is there any limitation with either protocol? I'm not familiar
>with the performance of Bequeath.
Received on Fri Jul 09 1999 - 02:58:03 CDT