Re: Bigger block sizes

From: Orlando L <oralrnr_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:12:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL8Ae75G9jFsCqSn_z8m_GNjNbFU9OU9GOXy0Gcd-P+86hF=Aw_at_mail.gmail.com>

"oracle really only tests on the 8k block size": interesting! They claim the product supports other blocksizes too!

There must be places where 8K blocks may not be big enough to store a row, even at 1% PCTFREE.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> I haven't seen any advantages from using any larger block sizes. I also
> saw a Tom Kyte article a while back that said they are only intended for
> use with transportable table spaces, and oracle really only tests on the 8k
> block size.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Sep 30, 2015, at 4:29 PM, Orlando L <oralrnr_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > List,
> >
> > Does anyone in the list use non default blocksize of greater than 8K for
> your oracle DBs; if so, is it for warehousing/OLAP type applications? What
> advantages do you get with them; any disadvantage.
> >
> > Orlando.
>

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

Received on Thu Oct 01 2015 - 17:12:51 CEST