RE: separate tablespaces for tables and indexes
- From: "Mercadante, Thomas F" <thomas.mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:42:39 -0500
All,
All of your arguments about "indexes and their tables were read serially
anyway", to me, only really holds up when, as you say, there is only one
user on the machine.
But we know that this test case *never* happens. There are always multiple
users on the database. So splitting IO's via separation of index and data
was still a great idea at the time. It was certainly better than having
everything on one big disk.
But now, I'm just not sure what the correct answer is. To me, it all comes
back to object management. If the disk/SAN farm is/are big and fast enough,
then I don't have to worry about contention and disk throughput anymore.
(This is actually what I'm dealing with now. We use both EMC and IBM Shark
arrays. I have no freekin idea how the physical disk are mounted and used
by the applications. I only know I have mount points on the unix box that I
create my files on).
So I vote for keeping things separate for management purposes. But I get
the feeling that with auto segment management that this may not matter
anymore in a few years.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Mercadante, Thomas F [mailto:thomas.mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 2:15 PM
To: 'JBECKSTROM@xxxxxxxxx'; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: separate tablespaces for tables and indexes
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
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
