This discussion is archived
2 Replies Latest reply: Jul 3, 2012 10:38 AM by Alex Fatkulin RSS

db_block_size

user1779355 Newbie
Currently Being Moderated
We have a vendor app which is OLTP

that has
db_block_size= 16K
tablespaces with block_size=16k

should
you stick to 16k for both db_block_size and tablespace block sizes

or

should you use

db_block_size=8k and create tablespace with block_size=8k?

this is exadata x2-2

Thanks
  • 1. Re: db_block_size
    UweHesse Expert
    Currently Being Moderated
    I would not consider that an Exadata specific question. If there was a valid reason why you have had a Blocksize of 16k before (which is doubtful, especially for an OLTP system), this reason will still apply on Exadata. Generally, I'd recommend to use the Blocksize 8k unless you have a very good reason to use another value.

    Kind regards
    Uwe Hesse

    "Don't believe it, test it!"
    http://uhesse.com
  • 2. Re: db_block_size
    Alex Fatkulin Explorer
    Currently Being Moderated
    The cons of using the non-default block sizes usually outweighs the pros. Remember that there are blocks-size specific bugs (mostly for 32K however) so every time you're running something different from what other people are (mostly) running your risk increases.

    The best way is to test both and then see if additional benefits from running 16k (if there are any) are worth it.

    However, be careful in one regard -- the vendor might have legitimate reasons for recommending 16k block size. For example, they might use index keys that would be otherwise too big for 8K blocks or using smaller blocks might introduce unnecessary row chaining/migration. Though I'm deeply in doubt that there are many vendors around who write software for Oracle DB understanding any of that ;-)

Legend

  • Correct Answers - 10 points
  • Helpful Answers - 5 points