Sorry, It was a rhetorical question.
Detailed results come under the heading of company confidential - generic results come under the heading of repetition. You just have to list the set of point (see my earlier point) about why smaller or larger blocks MIGHT make a difference that you could expect to notice, then figure out if any of those points are relevant to your system, then devise a realistic test to find out if any hypothetical benefit turns into a real benefit. Regards Jonathan Lewis http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk Coming soon a new one-day tutorial: Cost Based Optimisation (see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/tutorial.html ) Next Seminar dates: (see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html ) ____England______January 21/23 The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html -----Original Message----- To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 23 December 2002 10:24 >Hi Jonathan > >Would like to have Tests done for BOTH Small & Big DB_BLOCK_SIZE , >if possible , as mentioned below > >Thanks > >-----Original Message----- >Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 4:50 PM >To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > >I think there are too many generic arguments >available for picking the 'right' block size for >your indexes. > >The one that is most appropriate is likely to >depend on the nature of the activity (load >vs. query), nature of the index (unique, >nearly unique, far from unique), data clustering, >order of data arrival, frequency of data arrival, >pattern of data deletion/update, stability of volume, >nature of queries (big or small range scans), >potential of modifying number of branches, >buffering effects, and whether or not you are >using a filesystem with or without direct i/o. > >Given another 10 minutes I might come up >with a few more ideas. > >Your strategy should be to identify the extreme, >and critical, characteristics of your system and >play to them - small block size may be appropriate, >reverse indexes may be appropriate, getting rid of >the synthetic key that is likely to cause a problem >may be appropriate. But don't assume that anything >as trivial as tweaking a block size is a driving >feature of making your index work well. > >Which test case would you like to see - the one >I did for company X that showed they needed a >small block size, or the one I did for company Y >that showed they needed a large block size ? > > >Regards > >Jonathan Lewis >http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk > >Coming soon a new one-day tutorial: >Cost Based Optimisation >(see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/tutorial.html ) > >Next Seminar dates: >(see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html ) > >____England______January 21/23 > > >The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ >http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html > > > -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jonathan Lewis INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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).
