RE: separate tablespaces for tables and indexes
- From: "Mercadante, Thomas F" <thomas.mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'JBECKSTROM@xxxxxxxxx'" <JBECKSTROM@xxxxxxxxx>, oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:15:06 -0500
Jeff,
In my view, separating indexes and tables was never about tablespace
contention. It was always about moving the index and table files onto
separate disk drives to avoid disk contention.
Now that we have SAN disk where the 10 mount points that we see on a Unix
box are actually split from the 3 hard disk drives on the SAN box, I'm not
sure that splitting indexes and tables for performance matter anymore.
If you are going to use automatic allocation of segments for the database
objects, it would be interesting to hear from the experts if the separation
of these objects really matters.
However, I still do it for management of database objects - mostly because
index segment usage is so much smaller that table segment usage.
Hope this helps.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Beckstrom [mailto:JBECKSTROM@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 2:05 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ORACLE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; oracledba@xxxxxxxxxxx;
oracle-rdbms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: separate tablespaces for tables and indexes
We have started using locally managed tablespaces for all new
tablespaces. We create the tablespaces with autoallocate.
Since the tablespaces are locally managed, is there a need to separate
the tables and indexes anymore?
Jeffrey Beckstrom
Database Administrator
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
1240 W. 6th Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
