Re: Single vs Multiple tablespaces
- From: Martin Klier <usn@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: handdba@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:09:39 +0200
Hi,
M Hand schrieb:
> So, I'm interested to know if anyone is using a single application
> tablespace layout? Any regrets?
I just like to reduce the number of tablespaces as far as possible, and,
by the way, I am using bigfile tablespaces whever possible as well. But
that's another topic.
My arguments randomly organized, please don't see any ranking in the
order here:
- KISS: Why should I have to think about which TBS to use for what
schema/table today? All blocks are equal, no matter where are they
coming from.
- Standardization: A special KISS need, but I like to have all
Multi-Purpose DBs with the same tablespace name(s), to simplify schema
exchange with old style exp/imp.
- Some other stuff is crap: e.g. "saving overhead" is nonsense: Most
overhead comes from the number of segments and their management.
Exporting schemas by picking tablespaces is long-gone.
- Please folks, don't be mislead to choose different block sizes for one
or more tablespaces (from the DB value), or - maybe worse - bring this
as an argument here... :)
=> It's lots of personal taste in choosing the way, in the end I don't
think that there's a real measurable difference in performance or
maintainability.
Best regards
Martin Klier
--
Usn's IT Blog for Linux, Oracle, Asterisk
http://www.usn-it.de
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
