Message-ID: <F001.005D115E.20030925153441@fatcity.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:34:41 -0800
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L@fatcity.com>
Sender: ml-errors@fatcity.com
Reply-To: ORACLE-L@fatcity.com
Errors-To: ML-ERRORS@fatcity.com
From: "Tanel Poder" <tanel.poder.003@mail.ee>
Subject: Re: Multiple block sizes
Organization: Fat City Network Services, San Diego, California
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Wolfgang,

Well, I do understand the buffer cache usage part, but few hundred megs of
disk space and 20 seconds of backup time savings wouldn't make me to start
experimenting with block sizes like that.

I assume index organized tables would be the best solution if you got huge
amount of tiny lookup tables, but yeah, in packaged app you can't just start
changing physical structure...

Tanel.

----- Original Message ----- 
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <ORACLE-L@fatcity.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 9:59 PM


> I'm not there yet, at least not in production, but I am looking forward to
> putting thousands of small (actually empty) tables and indexes of
> Peoplesoft Financials into a 2K tablespace. Not that they will ever occupy
> any room in the buffer pool, but just for the savings in disk space (and
> backup time until we go to RMAN and incremental backups). 10,000 tables
> occupying 2 2K blocks instead of 2 8K blocks is a savings of almost 120M.
> In order not to waste the 2K buffer pool I'll find a few suitable lookup
> tables that could benefit from what will then be a keep pool.
>
> At 07:44 AM 9/25/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >I think putting your small tables to 2K block size is quite pointless
> >(unless you have tens of thousands of these tables continously in buffer
> >cache).
> >
> >Tanel.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <mailto:Avnish.Rastogi@providence.org>Avnish.Rastogi@providence.org
> >To: <mailto:ORACLE-L@fatcity.com>Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 8:54 PM
> >Subject: RE: Multiple block sizes
> >
> >I have little bit experience on that. I am keeping indexes in 32K
> >block  'cause Oracle access indexes sequentially and placing indexes in
> >large block would help in reducing IO.  All the tables are in 8K block
> >size but you can think about putting small tables in 2K or 4KB block size
> >to better utilize your RAM. We are on AIX 5.1 , Oracle 9202.
>
> Wolfgang Breitling
> Oracle7, 8, 8i, 9i OCP DBA
> Centrex Consulting Corporation
> http://www.centrexcc.com
>
>
> -- 
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
> -- 
> Author: Wolfgang Breitling
>   INET: breitliw@centrexcc.com
>
> Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
> San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
> to: ListGuru@fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
> also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
>


-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Tanel Poder
  INET: tanel.poder.003@mail.ee

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru@fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).