Re: 8k block size upgrade concern

From: IANAL_VISTA <IANAL_Vista_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:27:48 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns968356181553CSunnySD@68.6.19.6>

"JeffV" <jeffv27982_at_aol.com> wrote in
news:1119972036.780734.20690_at_o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> Hello All,
>
> Our team is currently quickly approaching an 8k block size upgrade of a
> fairly large production database (800 gig). This is one step in
> several to improve the performance of a long running (44 hour) batch
> cycle.

What specific & verifiable evidence do you have that going from a 4K block size to an 8K block size will reduce the run time?

Have you ever actually enabled SQL_TRACE on the 44 hour job to actually see where it is spending its time what are the longest running SQL statements are?

Or is your "upgrade plan" simply a case of: Ready, Fire, AIM! Received on Tue Jun 28 2005 - 10:27:48 CDT