This thread started on 10/21/2003, with a *lot* of comments.
No time to read it all, so I'll just work with what appears here.
Have considered that this table is simply used a lot and remains
in the cache because it belongs there due to frequent access?
SQL with high LIO's?
Jared
| Ravi Kulkarni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/02/2004 07:59 AM
|
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: RE: Cache a table |
That was what we expected. This is a highly active
PeopleSoft Database. Will it take several months to
push those blocks out ? Though not true, it appears
the nocache had no effect at all ..
-Ravi.
--- "Bobak, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, that's not really a surprise, is it? If you
> do CACHE first, and
> cache all the tables blocks, then do NOCACHE, Oracle
> isn't going to
> immediately explicitly flush those blocks. I'd
> expect that as demand
> on the buffer cache increased, the blocks would age
> out. Oracle almost always
> follows the "delay any work I can till later, cause
> with any luck, I won't
> have to do it later, either!" rule.
>
> If you set the table to NOCACHE and then try doing
> other activity which will
> impose a load on the buffer cache, I'd expect to see
> (at least some of) those
> blocks age out.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ravi Kulkarni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wed 12/31/2003 6:34 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Cache a table
> Hi Richard,
>
> Did you test the effect of Nocache after caching ?
> What we noticed is "cache followed by nocache" is
> not
> making the blocks to be flushed out. This has been
> that way for months now in a production database of
> ours.
>
> Thx,
> Ravi.
>
