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

How do you change the size of the BEQ pipe?

Jonathan Lewis wrote:

> 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 Sat Jul 10 1999 - 21:36:17 CDT