Re: oracle-l Digest V3 #373

Apologies to Prashant for attributing to him the suggestion to read the article quoted below. The suggestion actually came from Murtuja.khokhar.

Regards

Jonathan Lewis
http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com

Author: Cost Based Oracle: Fundamentals
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/cbo_book/ind_book.html

The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html

• Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> To: <oracle-l_at_freelists.org> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:15 AM Subject: Re: oracle-l Digest V3 #373

>
> Prashant,
>
> Before recommending that link again, you might like to think carefully
> about the quality of the content. Here's just one small example of how
> erroneous it is:
>
> " By segregating high activity tables into a separate, smaller data buffer,
> "
> " Oracle has far less RAM frames to scan for dirty block, improving the"
> " throughout and also reducing CPU consumption. This is especially "
> " important for super-high update tables with more than 100 row changes "
> " per second."
>
> Since Oracle 8.1, dirty blocks go on to the checkpoint queue the moment
> they are made dirty - and they stay in place on that queue until the database
> writer has written them; and DBWR picks them off the queue in the correct
> order without having to scan the buffer. That's why you see far fewer
> "checkpoint not complete" errors, and how the fast_start_mttr_target
> can be made to work.
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l