Hi John, If I'm understanding what I'm reading from the 9i Concepts Guide, I think that non-default block size objects can only go into the cache with the same block size (meaning it can't go into keep buffer). I'm making this assumption because we can't create a tablespace of 16k blocksize until db_16k_cache exists. However, I'm working on testing this today and will reply with results.
Darrell >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/19/03 01:50PM >>> I have indexes in a 16k page size tablespace. I have the following init.ora parameters: db_block_size=4096 db_cache_size=600M db_keep_cache_size=200M db_16k_cache_size=200M If I alter an index to put it in the keep pool, how does Oracle hande the discrepancy between the 4k default keep buffer and the 16k index block size? Am I better off keeping the index in the 16k cache or in the db_keep_cache pool? Since statspack shows: Event Waits Timeouts Time (s) (ms) /txn ---------------------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ------ -------- db file sequential read 2,725,553 0 40,710 15 355.2 I assume my indexes should be cached more to reduce the waits. Is that correct? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks John Baylis Database Administrator Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Vancouver B.C. Canada > (604) 697-6476 (Office) > (604) 313-6054 (Cell) > -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Darrell Landrum 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).
