RE: separate tablespaces for tables and indexes
- From: "Goulet, Dick" <DGoulet@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <JBECKSTROM@xxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ORACLE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracledba@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-rdbms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:27:31 -0500
In my opinion, yes. The original idea was to place the objects on
different drives to protect against failure and contention. But today I
still think it's valid as large tablespaces take more time to scan than
smaller ones. It may not reduce contention, but speed still counts. And
then there's always the problem of the fumbled fingers at the os level.=20
Dick Goulet
Senior Oracle DBA
Oracle Certified 8i DBA
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Beckstrom [mailto:JBECKSTROM@xxxxxxxxx]=20
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. =20
=20
Since the tablespaces are locally managed, is there a need to separate
the tables and indexes anymore?
=20
=20
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:
