The problem I see with this proposal is that the buffer manager knows
how to handle only a equally-sized pages. And the shared memory stuff
gets sized according to size * num_pages. So what happens if a certain
tablespace A with pagesize=X gets to have a lot of its pages cached,
evicting
On 6/1/05, Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could create a separate bufferpool per page size. Of course that
has other disadvantages.
Is it really so difficult to create and attach another shmem segment ?
Well, I don't think it is much different from having two
On K, 2005-06-01 at 14:00 +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
On 6/1/05, Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could create a separate bufferpool per page size. Of course that
has other disadvantages.
Is it really so difficult to create and attach another shmem segment ?
Hey everyone,
I'm sure this has been thought of but was wondering whether anyone had
discussed the allowance of run-time block size specifications at the
tablespace level? I know that a change such as this would substantially
impact buffer operations, transactions, access methods, the
Jonah H. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm sure this has been thought of but was wondering whether anyone had
discussed the allowance of run-time block size specifications at the
tablespace level?
Can you produce any evidence whatsoever that this could be worth the cost?
Aside from the
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Hey everyone,
I'm sure this has been thought of but was wondering whether anyone had
discussed the allowance of run-time block size specifications at the
tablespace level? I know that a change such as this would substantially
impact buffer operations, transactions,
Yes,
That is what I/my clients have been discussing. It is a nifty
performance feature.
Bricklen Anderson wrote:
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Hey everyone,
I'm sure this has been thought of but was wondering whether anyone
had discussed the allowance of run-time block size specifications at
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:55:29PM -0600, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Hey everyone,
I'm sure this has been thought of but was wondering whether anyone had
discussed the allowance of run-time block size specifications at the
tablespace level? I know that a change such as this would
Tom,
You and I both know that depending on the application and data,
different block sizes are beneficial. As for actual statistics due to
overhead, I don't know what I can give you.
I can provide stats from an application which fits the case for multiple
block sizes on Oracle, but Oracle
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jonah H. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm sure this has been thought of but was wondering whether anyone had
discussed the allowance of run-time block size specifications at the
tablespace level?
Can you produce any evidence
10 matches
Mail list logo
