Re: Bigger block sizes

On 10/2/15 1:16, Jonathan Lewis wrote:
>
> My mother used to tell me that two wrongs don't make a right - but she
> wasn't a DBA.
>
>
> Regards
> Jonathan Lewis
> http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com
> _at_jloracle
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
> on behalf of Mark Brinsmead [mark.brinsmead_at_gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 02 October 2015 05:32
> *To:* oralrnr_at_gmail.com
> *Cc:* oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> *Subject:* Re: Bigger block sizes
>
> One (sort of) legitimate use-case I came across was an inherited
> database where they used tablespaces with 32KB blocks to house indexes
> that required insanely huge keys.
>
> (Even with 32KB blocks, we were sometimes unable to create the indexes
> we wanted/needed, which often included multiple VARCHAR(4000) columns.)
>
> The application itself was highly unusual, and the underlying
> architecture even more so. (And I had nothing whatsoever to do with
> either of them.)
>
> Anyway, cases where you truly need indexes with really large keys will
> warrant block sizes greater than 8KB. With 8KB blocks, you are limited
> to something like 3916 bytes as your largest key. (Yes, I know --
> that ought to be enough for most people. Did I mention that I had no
> input into the architectural decisions?)
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Orlando L <oralrnr_at_gmail.com
> <mailto: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