RE: Rule of thumb for new schema vs. new database?
- To: <Thomas.Mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <brian.peasey@xxxxxxxxx>, "Oracle-L" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 10:15:30 -0400
> Something that was not mentioned by everyone and what I think is the
> most important question to ask has to do with recoverability.
I can recover an individual tablespace or tablespaces owned by a single
schema just as effectively in a shared instance as a separate one,
without at all impacting other data.
The real rule or thumb should be operational characteristics. You would
certainly not put this newly proposed schema in an instance that is only
up 9am to 7pm, or one that is not being run in archivelog mode because
it has no point in time recovery requirement, or has some third party
software that may have DB configuration restrictions (such as the
aforementioned incompatibility with Oracle 10g).
What we do, in our shop, is keep such 3rd party apps in their own
instances, and then have most of our in-house stuff in general purpose
DBs. This has enabled to upgrade and keep those pretty current, and
gives us experience with newer Oracle releases in advance of the SAP,
Siebel and Peoplesoft versions that finally do support them.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
