"3rd-hand rumors have told me that they had more than 20,000 user accounts" That's insane! The most I have had is 250+ schemas due to Oracle EBS. Alfredo On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Tim Gorman <tim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Back in 1996 while I was working for Oracle Consulting, contracting for > the consolidated DW at the telecom formerly known as USWest (then Qwest, > now CenturyLink), I received a strange email from a guy on another project > in the company... > > *When you delete a user from an Oracle database, does it automatically > reclaim the space in the data dictionary?* > > > Too vague to answer right away, and after some back-n-forth got down to > the root, which was that he wanted to know if the space in the SYS.USER$ > would be "freed" for "reclaim" by a future CREATE USER command. OK, easy > enough: Oracle7, PCTUSED, PCTFREE, FREELISTS, yadda, yadda and it seemed > his question was answered. > > But the weirdness and specificity of the question nagged, so I asked > around about the guy. Didn't have to dig far... > > It turned out that he was the "architect" on a custom-built internal > application called "OSPFM" (I think it meant "outside plant and facilities > management"), and they had designed it so that each Oracle user/account had > it's own separate schema. > > There were *thousands* of Oracle user/accounts. Each with its own > complete and independent schema. Thousands of schemas. > > I kid you not. > > Not going to get into any of the nonsense reasoning that resulted in this, > but the project actually succeeded (sort of) and went "live". Of course, > it didn't outlast the century, and eventually someone brought order to > chaos and redesigned it conventionally; the advent of partitioning helped. > 3rd-hand rumors have told me that they had more than 20,000 user accounts > and schemas before this happened. > > Anyway, long answer to short question, but as far back as Oracle7, there > are no limits. > > Unfortunately. > > > > > > On 8/7/14, 8:11, Jeremy Schneider wrote: > > I've done quite a bit of work on databases with several hundred schemas - > including some over 250. As Hemant pointed out, these are highly > consolidated databases; each schema is a a different application. It > actually worked very well on the systems I worked on, after we solved a few > unique challenges. Found the limits of resource manager and some tuning > tools, but came up with good creative solutions to do resource management > and tuning on dbs with a huge number of applications. > > -J > > -- > http://about.me/jeremy_schneider > > > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Karth Panchan <keyantech@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I understand more schema's is difficult to maintain. >> >> Are there any limitation on number of schema's in Oracle 11g RAC? >> >> Supporting old application with 250 schema's per DB. I was told more >> than 250 schema's will cause some SQLLIB error from Oracle. >> >> Anyone worked/faced issues with around 250 schema's ? >> >> BTW our new application modified to handle in single schema. >> >> Karth >> >> Sent from my IPhone >> >> On Aug 7, 2014, at 5:04 AM, Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >> That's a fair question, Patrice's original question arose in the >> context of the SQL Developer diff tool for comparing schemas in 2 different >> databases. In that context I considered an empty schema to count towards >> the number of schemas in a db since you definitely want to know if it is >> empty in db A but populated in db B. However it did seem likely to me that >> most people would go with your definition - hence Q2. >> >> As I'm away for a bit now, and we have 60 responses, the results so far >> (DB account = any user, schema = user owning objects) are below. So the >> anecdotal evidence from this list is that it is unusual, but hardly unheard >> of, to have > 100 users owning database objects. If anyone missed Jeff's >> later reply on the other thread the DBDiff feature of SQL*Developer isn't >> really intended to be used at that sort of scale. >> >> Total DB accounts >> >> 0-10 15.00% >> 10-100 40.00% >> 100-500 28.33% >> 500-1000 10.00% >> 1000-5000 1.67% >> 5000+ 5.00% >> >> >> Total Schemas >> >> 0-10 31.67% >> 10-100 45.00% >> 100-500 18.33% >> 500-1000 3.33% >> 1000+ 1.67% >> >> Niall >> <pedantry> >> I'd go with schema as being a set of objects in a single namespace and >> of course would say that that must logically include the empty set :) >> </pedantry> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:58 AM, William Robertson < >> william@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> How are we defining "schema"? To me it's a collection of database >>> objects owned by a single account (or equivalent namespace), so I was a bit >>> puzzled by the two-part question. A user that owns no objects (such as a >>> read-only production account) is not a schema, surely. >>> >>> William Robertson >>> >>> >>> On 5 Aug 2014, at 14:35, Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>> >>> All >>> >>> For those not following the dbdiff thread I've created a 2 question >>> survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VGKZMY5 to get some statistics >>> on how many different schemas databases in the wild actually contain. If we >>> get more than, say, 50 responses I'll post back the answers here. >>> >>> -- >>> Niall Litchfield >>> Oracle DBA >>> http://www.orawin.info >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Niall Litchfield >> Oracle DBA >> http://www.orawin.info >> >> > >