RE: SORT_AREA_SIZE question

You didn't specify which version of Oracle you are using, but if it's 9i then you should investigate the use of pga_aggregate_target instead of the older sort_area parameters.  I've been using pga_aggregate_target in a hybrid OLTP/reporting database for about 8 months with great results.  Mine is set to 100 MB.  You'll get the benifit of the memory advice feature of 9i as well.  Have a look at OEM if you're using it, otherwise you can look directly in the dictionary views to determine proper sizing of PGA, shared pool, and buffer cache.  
Best regards,
David B. Wagoner Database
Administrator Arsenal Digital Solutions

 -----Original
Message-----From: Bart Kersteter
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:39 AMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: SORT_AREA_SIZE question

  Hello,
 

  I joined this list last week, so I apologize in advance if I'm asking a   question that has previously been answered.
 

  I am responsible for a reporting database/data mart that is approximately   175 GB.  Our main fact table ranges from 1-14 GB depending upon how far   along we are into our financial year.  I have large reports that run full   table scans on this table daily.  In an effort to keep as much of the   sorting in memory as possible I have specified SORT_AREA_SIZE to be   100MB.  Some of the tuning books I am reading now are making me   second-guess myself and I am wondering if this is overkill.
 

  Can anyone provide some advice on how large they are setting their   SORT_AREA_SIZE values for their DSS systems? 
 

  Thanks in advance,
 

  Bart
 
  

  Please NoteThe
  information in this E-mail message is legally privilegedand confidential   information intended only for the use of theindividual(s) named above. If   you, the reader of this message,are not the intended recipient, you are   hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or   forward thisE-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in   error,please notify the sender. Thank you          Received on Wed Jun 25 2003 - 10:08:23 CDT