Call now: 252-767-6166  
Oracle Training Oracle Support Development Oracle Apps

 E-mail Us
 Oracle Articles

 Oracle Training
 Oracle Tips

 Oracle Forum
 Class Catalog

 Remote DBA
 Oracle Tuning
 Emergency 911
 RAC Support
 Apps Support
 Oracle Support

 SQL Tuning

 Oracle UNIX
 Oracle Linux
 Remote s
 Remote plans
 Application Server

 Oracle Forms
 Oracle Portal
 App Upgrades
 SQL Server
 Oracle Concepts
 Software Support

 Remote S


 Consulting Staff
 Consulting Prices
 Help Wanted!


 Oracle Posters
 Oracle Books

 Oracle Scripts

Don Burleson Blog 








Is the Oracle buffer hit ratio a useless metric for monitoring and tuning?

Oracle Tips by Burleson Consulting

Updated 22 May 2013

Ever since the Oracle7 performance tuning class in the early 1990's recommended keeping the buffer hit ratio above 95%, (advice later adopted by SAP and other ERP vendors), there has been a huge amount of misunderstandings about the Buffer Cache Hit Ratio, and the value of ratios in-general as a tool for Oracle monitoring and tuning.

To learn more about optimizing the data buffer hit ration, see Oracle data buffer hit ratio advisory and the importance of an improving your data buffer hit ratio.

Lets start by separating the fact from the fiction.  Whether we are talking about the buffer cache hit ratio or the data buffer cache advisory (see v$db_cache_advice), we need to remember that they are just different formulas for twiddling the same metrics, namely the elapsed-time deltas for logical I/O (consistent gets) and physical I/O (disk reads).  Hence, any computations are fundamentally flawed:

  • One Point - A single delta value does not provide enough information for any meaningful estimates. 

  • Too long - Using the standard one-hour snapshots looses much detail, making most extrapolations meaningless.  Of course, it's a different story when we take multiple snapshots, especially at high-granularity (e.g. 10 minutes or less).

If we decompose the problem, we are really taking about elapsed logical I/O vs. physical reads.  The formulas are incidental.

Most experts agree that the Buffer Cache Hit Ratios, by themselves, are of limited value, only one of hundreds of metrics that indicate database performance.  In  general, all ratios are limited because they only measure a probability, in the instance case, the overall probability that a data block will be found in the data buffer cache upon "re-read" (i.e. the BCHR has no bearing on blocks are "brand new" to the data cache). 

Another issue with the BCHR is it's high variability.  For example, while an overall hourly BCHR may be 96%, the value swings wildly.  When examined at a finer level of granularity, the BCHR could be 20% one minute, and 95% the next.  It's all dependent on the current workload.

Mythmakers and the buffer hit ratio

The mythos about the data buffer hit ration are spread mainly by people who do not understand the fundamental nature of ratio's.  For example, a DBA once published a demo script which accepts a "target" BCHR and then floods the database with requests for pre-cached data blocks until the desired ratio is achieved! 

From this obvious demonstration of ratio's in-action, many people falsely concluded that because a ratio can be manipulated, ergo it is totally meaningless!

Bob Jones comments on the assertion that the BCHR is meaningless, simply because it can be changed by artificially varying the database workload:

BCHR can be manipulated. That is nothing new. All stats can be inflated in similar manners. But that doesn't make them all meaningless. Given everything else being equal, high BCHR is always better than low BHCR . .

BCHR alone does not tell you about overall performance. It simply tell you the disk I/O percentage. It is an indicator, a very meaningful one.

But can we therefore conclude that the BCHR is totally useless?  Let's take a closer look.

The BCHR for performance tuning

The buffer cache hit ratio is no longer touted as a standalone measure of system performance, but it's not completely useless either.  There has been some question about whether the data buffer cache advisory is a ratio-based tool (and hence is invaluable as the data buffer hit ratio).  MOSC Note:148511.1 says that the estd_physical_read_factor is a ratio:

"Physical read factor for this cache size, which is the ratio of the number of estimated physical reads to the number of reads in the real cache." 

See how to predict I/O reduction from a larger data cache for more details.

From the 10g documentation on memory usage we see that Oracle continues to recommend using the buffer cache hit ratio in conjunction with other metrics, namely the predictive ratio's displayed in the 10g buffer cache advisory:

"The buffer cache hit ratio can be used to verify the physical I/O as predicted by V$DB_CACHE_ADVICE"

In a well-tuned production database, adding RAM to the data buffers can make a difference in overall throughput, via a reduction in physical disk reads, one of the most time-consuming operations in any Oracle database.  The Oracle University Performance tuning course for Oracle9i (dated 2001)notes that you should increase the cache size ratio under the following conditions:

  • The cache hit ratio is less than 0.9 on OLTP system.

  • There is no undue page faulting.

  • If the previous increase was effective.

The Oracle AWR report contains a buffer advisory utility that shows predictions of the marginal changes to physical disk reads with changes to the buffer size:

Buffer Pool Advisory 
-> Only rows with estimated physical reads >0 are displayed
-> ordered by Block Size, Buffers For Estimate
        Size for  Size      Buffers for  Est Physical          Estimated
P   Estimate (M) Factr   Estimate   Read Factor     Physical Reads
--- ------------ ----- ---------- ------------- ------------------
D              4    .1        501          2.10          1,110,930
D              8    .2      1,002          1.84            970,631
D             12    .2      1,503          1.75            924,221
D             16    .3      2,004          1.62            857,294
D             20    .4      2,505          1.61            850,849
D             24    .5      3,006          1.59            837,223
D             28    .5      3,507          1.58            831,558
D             32    .6      4,008          1.57            829,083
D             36    .7      4,509          1.56            825,336
D             40    .8      5,010          1.56            823,195
D             44    .8      5,511          1.06            557,204
D             48    .9      6,012          1.01            534,992
D             52   1.0      6,513          1.00            527,967
D             56   1.1      7,014          0.78            411,218
D             60   1.2      7,515          0.35            186,842
D             64   1.2      8,016          0.28            148,305
D             68   1.3      8,517          0.26            134,969
D             72   1.4      9,018          0.23            123,283
D             76   1.5      9,519          0.23            121,878
D             80   1.5     10,020          0.23            120,317


For a well-tuned database, the goal of setting the data buffer size is to cache the "working set" of frequently referenced data blocks, the point at which we see a marginal decline in the amount of RAM needed to reduce disk reads:

However, there are some serious limitation to the Oracle data buffer cache advisor:

  • Only one delta - Using only two observations for logical reads and physical I/O are not enough data for a meaningful prediction.  The "current workload" assumption has a wide variance, and the numbers for a one minute report will be quite different from  a one hour report.

  • Only two metrics - All of the advice from the data buffer cache advisory is limited to logical I/O and physical I/O at the system-wide level.

  • Assumption of optimization - The AWR data buffer cache advisor (and possibly the related v$db_cache_advice utility), only has two data points to consider and it assumes that the existing data buffer size is optimal, the point at which the working set of frequently-used data blocks are cached, and additions to the data buffer result in marginally declining reductions in physical reads.


Hence, on the margin, the data buffer cache advisory is inaccurate for database with an undersized db_cache_size (and db_keep_cache_size, etc.).  With the data buffer set to a very small size, a small increase to the size of the RAM data buffers results in a large reduction in Disk I/O.

The data buffer cache advisory may underestimate the benefits with a too-small cache

However, the high reduction in Disk I/O does not continue ad infinitum. As the RAM size approaches the database size, the marginal reduction in Disk I/O is smaller because all databases have infrequently accessed data.

The data buffer cache advisory does not know that a cache is oversized

In sum, the usefulness of a data buffer cache advisory is undisputed, but the true way to a successful predictive model is to use the scripts from my book "Oracle Tuning: The Definitive Reference". 

These provide a valid time-series analysis since the single delta values in the advisory are not sufficient.  Using STATSPACK data for consistent gets and physical reads, statistically significant trends can be established. 

See my related notes on v$db_cache_advice:


The BCHR for monitoring

Oracle has the v$db_cache_advice utility and has incorporated a buffer cache advisory into the standard AWR report, ostensibly to provide recommendations about the projected reduction in expensive disk I/O with the addition  of more data buffers.

But the question remains about the value of this metric to the DBA.

Once I've tuned and stabilized my systems, I notice that the metrics create repeatable "signatures", patterns of usage that form the baselines for the exception alerts.

First, we establish a "exception threshold" for the BCHR, (e.g. +- 20%), and compare that deviation to the historical average, normalized by the historical average per hour and the day-of-the-week.

When the alert fires, an e-mail notifies the DBA.  This alert does not have any corrective action, it merely alerts the DBA that there has been a significant change to the I/O patterns within their workload.

Getting the optimal threshold value is an iterative process. If I get a false positive, I simply increase the threshold, and sometimes, turn it off completely.

No single database will have the same BCHR alert thresholds. For example, while OLTP databases have predictable patterns of usage, a data warehouse is likely to have less signatures, often making the BCHR a totally useless metric.

My other notes on buffer hit ratios

Here are my elated notes on the buffer cache hit ratio, and please note that some of this advice may not apply to later releases of Oracle:


Get Complete Oracle Tuning Details 

The landmark book "Oracle Tuning: The Definitive Reference Third Edition" has been updated with over 800 pages of expert performance tuning tips. It's packed with scripts and tools to hypercharge Oracle performance and you can buy it for 40% off directly from the publisher.





Oracle training Excel
Oracle performance tuning software 


Burleson is the American Team

Note: This Oracle documentation was created as a support and Oracle training reference for use by our DBA performance tuning consulting professionals.  Feel free to ask questions on our Oracle forum.

Verify experience! Anyone considering using the services of an Oracle support expert should independently investigate their credentials and experience, and not rely on advertisements and self-proclaimed expertise. All legitimate Oracle experts publish their Oracle qualifications.

Errata?  Oracle technology is changing and we strive to update our BC Oracle support information.  If you find an error or have a suggestion for improving our content, we would appreciate your feedback.  Just  e-mail:  and include the URL for the page.


Burleson Consulting

The Oracle of Database Support

Oracle Performance Tuning

Remote DBA Services


Copyright ? 1996 -  2014

All rights reserved by Burleson

Oracle ? is the registered trademark of Oracle Corporation.