In the past there was a version (forget which) that had a bug requiring
that these 2 be set the same.
No need to do that on 8.1.7.
Jared
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Boss)
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/13/2003 02:24 PM
|
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: sort_area_retained_size sizing? |
Hello all.
I'm analyzing an Oracle 8.1.7 server (running over Solaris 5.8)
and noticed they've increased the sort_area_size.
SQL> show parameter sort_area
NAME TYPE VALUE
------------------------------------ ------- ------------------------------
sort_area_retained_size integer 65536
sort_area_size integer 4194304
SQL>
However, they have NOT increased the corresponding _retained_size.
I've gone looking for guidelines/info to assist in tuning this particular
parameter, but am getting conflicting information.
- In a post by guru Howard J. Rogers to c.d.o.s. regarding a thread where
someone specifically asks how to configure these two parameter, He states
that he typically configures these two parameters to be the same (but
offers no real reason why).
- The concept guide in the Oracle Doc set though seems to indicate that
each user performing a sort grabs "sort_area_retained_size" worth of
memory, and thus recommends NOT sizing it the same as sort_area_size
on systems with a large number of concurrent users.
Any thoughts?
Todd
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author: Todd Boss
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).
