1. Is that performance gain absolutely
necessary?
What
happens if one company goes down and takes down them all.
On
another note, I tend to agree on lesser instances against more instances.
Easier to tune, better perforamance due to what I call instance wastage and much
easier to maintain. But if one system changes alot, has significiantly
different access methods, or goes up and down more than anyone, I would evaluate
seperate instances.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 1:41 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: Multiple schema's or multiple databasesOracle 8.1.6 and SolarisI'm going to inherit production databases when I start my new job next week. I gather that the production database consists of 8 schema's (8 companies) that are all in one database. Its an ERP package called Maximo and it interfaces to Financials 11i databases (don't know if this is multiple databases or schema's yet).Apparently there is some data passing between companies and multiple schema's perform better than using database links with multiple databases, and this is the reason for multiple schema's.Does anyone have an opinion on this. If I'd have done it I would have done multiple databases as they are separate companies, but I'm open to comments as not quite got my head round it yet, plus I've been vacationing (partying) for 3 weeks.ThanxSam
