Xref: alice comp.databases.oracle.server:65217
Path: alice!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!gw12.nn.bcandid.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!gate.bCandid.com!typ11.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <37D88E24.6599359A@intercall.net>
From: David Spaisman <davedba@intercall.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
Subject: reduce block size?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 26
X-Trace: typ11.nn.bcandid.com 936928038 209.235.132.86 (Thu, 09 Sep 1999 21:47:18 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 21:47:18 EDT
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 21:50:44 -0700

Hello:

I ma working with an Oracle 8.0.4 application on NT 4 sp4. There are
about 125 users and the applicaton is definitely transaction-based wit
about 125 tables. This application serves users in the U.S. We have a
similar IT group in Europe and the same application there. They
currently have less users buit the application is expected to grow(I
don't know at what rate)..

My DBA associate in Europe had a consultant(I believe from Oracle)
review the application and made three recomendations ;1) Take care of
some fragmented tables 2) decrease the shared pool as it was causing
memory swapping and 3) reduce the block size from 8k to 2k because of
the transactional nature of the application.

I agree with the first two recommendations but I am quite surprised
about the third: reducing the block size.


Has any one ever seen this type of  recommendation ? Is it correct or
not? Has any one ever done this?

If you need any additional information, please let me know. Thanks.

David Spaisman