Re: 9i multi cache buffer

"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:4zaC9.79255$g9.222705_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> "Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:M44C9.79071$g9.222107_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> >
> > "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:WCSB9.78569$g9.221206_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > >
> > > "Paul Brewer" <paul_at_paul.brewers.org.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:3dd7f53d_1_at_mk-nntp-
> > > > All of which is why, when people ask "What block size should I
use?",
> > > > I answer:
> > > >
> > > > a) Insufficient data. What are your objectives/OS platform/DB
> > > > version/application characteristics?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Too many degrees of freedom. You need only ask "OS Platform".
> >
> > Hi Howard,
> >
> > OS Platform => Solaris, with raw devices.
> >
>
> 16K.

Hi Howard,

16K is the best block size here, period.

You can think of no situation or set of conditions where another block size might be more appropriate ? .

Cheers

Richard

>
> Regards
> HJR
>
>
> > Correct block size is ...
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > >
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > or
> > > >
> > > > b) It depends
> > > >
> > >
> > > ...on the O/S platform.
> > >
> > > > or (failing everything else)
> > > >
> > > > 8K.
> > >
> > > Hmmm. It will do. Unless you're on AIX or Linux or NT.
> > >
> > > :-)
> > > HJR
> > >
> > >
> > > > Over-simplification, I know, but it answers the question.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, in real life it's usually the crappy SQL that makes the
> > > > difference.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Mon Nov 18 2002 - 18:16:46 CST