002 9:13 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: Secret maximum for INITRANS?
I've found the note. It wasn't what I remembered,
it was worse. I've just re-run a test on 9.0.1.2
that shows an interesting issue:
create table t1 (n1 number, v1 varchar2(1
Yes, and that's exactly what I was suspecting. Thanks for the quick
confirmation.
-rje
KG> I guess you are looking in 'itc' in block dumps which shows the
KG> ITL Count.
KG> And yes.. There is an upper bound for number of ITLs based on the
KG> block size. The transaction slots (and other head
I've found the note. It wasn't what I remembered,
it was worse. I've just re-run a test on 9.0.1.2
that shows an interesting issue:
create table t1 (n1 number, v1 varchar2(10));
create index i1 on t1(n1) pctfree 0 initrans 10;
insert into t1
select rownum,'x'
from all_objects
where rownum <=
Nice to know the actual strategy.
I came across an oddity some time ago
when trying to work this one out by setting
silly values for INITRANS. This would be
(correctly) ignored on a 'create index', and
then obeyed on a 'rebuild index' with the
result that the index got bigger. I think
it was 8
Robert,
I guess you are looking in 'itc' in block dumps which shows the ITL Count.
And yes.. There is an upper bound for number of ITLs based on the block
size.
The transaction slots (and other headers) can not use the more than 50% of
the
space available for data in the data block. Each ITL wi
I'm still messing with my enqueue waits on an insert. I'm now able to
recreate it on a test database by throwing enough simultaneous inserts
at my table. I was going to make sure which of the tables/indexes was
actually causing the waits by individually raising the INITRANS above
what they would n
