RE: Oracle Book Mal-practice...
- From: "Mercadante, Thomas F (LABOR)" <Thomas.Mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <tomdaytwo@xxxxxxxxx>, "Oracle-L" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 12:18:16 -0400
Thomas,
I agree with your statement about SAN and tablespaces. To me, it is
getting more and more irrelevant. I depend on the SAN administrator to
spread the data around on the drives.
Tom
________________________________
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Day
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:04 AM
To: Oracle-L
Subject: Re: Oracle Book Mal-practice...
I was having a discussion with a junior DBA the other day about whether
tables and indexes need to be in separate tablespaces and the issue of
concurrent access came up.
My position is that Oracle always reads the index and the uses the
rowid(s) to access the table. There is no issue of concurrent access.
However, she pulled out the latest and greatest Oracle 11 book and sure
enough the author repeated the old myth about concurrent access and the
need to separate indexes and tables.
How can you fight this? With SANs and logical disks there's no
certainty that separate tablespaces means that you're using separate
read/write heads. I'm getting as tired of this argument as I am of the
RAID5 argument. It shouldn't even be a point of discussion.
Doesn't Oracle have a vested interest in seeing that books about Oracle
have correct information or does that just make for more opportunities
for Oracle Consulting?
Other related posts:
