Simple .NET/ASP.NET PDF document editor web control SDK

sys%ORA11GR2> show parameter 16k NAME TYPE VALUE ------------------------------------ ----------- -----------------------------db_16k_cache_size big integer 16M So, now I have another buffer cache set up: one to cache any blocks that are 16KB in size The default pool will consume the rest of the buffer cache space, as you can see by querying V$SGASTAT These two caches are mutually exclusive; if one "fills up," it can t use space in the other This gives the DBA a very fine degree of control over memory use, but it comes at a price That price is complexity and management These multiple blocksizes were not intended as a performance or tuning feature (if you need multiple caches, you have the default, keep and recycle pools already!), but rather came about in support of transportable tablespaces the ability to take formatted data files from one database and transport or attach them to another database.

ssrs code 128, ssrs code 39, ssrs fixed data matrix, winforms pdf 417 reader, winforms qr code reader, winforms upc-a reader, c# remove text from pdf, c# replace text in pdf, winforms ean 13 reader, itextsharp remove text from pdf c#,

"\032" (space) "\u00a9" ( ) "\U00002260" ( )

They were implemented in order to take datafiles from a transactional system that was using an 8KB blocksize and transport that information to a data warehouse using a 16KB or 32KB blocksize The multiple blocksizes do serve a good purpose, however, in testing theories If you want to see how your database would operate with a different blocksize how much space, for example, a certain table would consume if you used a 4KB block instead of an 8KB block you can now test that easily without having to create an entirely new database instance You may also be able to use multiple blocksizes as a very finely focused tuning tool for a specific set of segments, by giving them their own private buffer pools Or, in a hybrid system, transactional users could use one set of data and reporting/warehouse users could query a separate set of data.

The transactional data would benefit from the smaller blocksizes due to less contention on the blocks (less data/rows per block means fewer people in general would go after the same block at the same time) as well as better buffer cache utilization (users read into the cache only the data they are interested in the single row or small set of rows) The reporting/warehouse data, which might be based on the transactional data, would benefit from the larger blocksizes due in part to less block overhead (it takes less storage overall) and larger logical I/O sizes perhaps And since reporting/warehouse data does not have the same update contention issues, the fact that there are more rows per block is not a concern but a benefit Moreover, the transactional users get their own buffer cache in effect; they don t have to worry about the reporting queries overrunning their cache.

As shown in Table 3-6, a literal form is also available for arrays of bytes: the characters are interpreted as ASCII characters, and non-ASCII characters can be embedded by escape codes. This can be useful when working with binary protocols: > "MAGIC"B;; val it : byte [] = [|77uy; 65uy; 71uy; 73uy; 67uy|] Verbatim string literals are particularly useful for file and path names that contain the backslash character (\): > let dir = @"c:\Program Files";; val dir : string

But in general, the default, keep, and recycle pools should be sufficient for fine-tuning the block buffer cache, and multiple blocksizes would be used primarily for transporting data from database to database and perhaps for a hybrid reporting/transactional system..