Hi,
To add my two pennies worth. By design I create physical database lqyouts
that seperate indexes and tables by tablespace for ease of management,
unless the database is real small. My experience over the years with Oracle,
has been the object corruptions in the database have occurred more frequenty
with indexes than tables, and when it happens its good just to be able to
scrap the index tablespaces datafiles and start again.
Regards
Pete
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 29 September 2003 02:45
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Thomas,
Please pardon me, but you are off-target in your criticisms of OFA.
It has never advocated separating tables from indexes for performance
purposes. Ironically, your email starts to touch on the real reason for
separating them (i.e. different types of I/O, different recovery
requirements, etc). Tables and indexes do belong in different tablespaces,
but not for reasons of performance.
Cary first designed and implemented OFA in the early 90s and formalized it
into a paper in 1995. Quite frankly, it is a brilliant set of rules of how
Oracle-based systems should be structured, and a breath of fresh air from
the simplistic way that Oracle installers laid things out at the time. It
took several years for Oracle Development to see the light and become
OFA-compliant, and not a moment too soon either. Just imagine if everything
were still installed into a single directory tree under ORACLE_HOME? All
of things you mention here have nothing to do with OFA.
Please read the paper.
Hope this helps...
-Tim
P.S. By the way, multiple block sizes are not intended for performance
optimization; they merely enable transportable tablespaces between
databases with different block sizes.
on 9/25/03 11:04 AM, Thomas Day at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I would love to have a definitive site that I could send all RAID-F
> advocates to where it would be laid out clearly, unambiguously, and
> definitively what storage types should be used for what purpose.
>
> Redo logs on RAID 0 with Oracle duplexing (y/n)?
> Rollback (or undo) ditto?
> Write intensive tablespaces on RAID 1+0 (or should that be 0+1)?
> Read intensive tablespaces on RAID ? (I guess 5 is OK since it's cheaper
> than 1+0 and you won't have the write penalty)
>
> While we're at it could we blow up the OFA myth? Since you're tablespaces
> are on datafiles that are on logical volumns that are on physical devices
> which may contain one or many actual disks, does it really make sense to
> worry (from a performance standpoint) about separating tables and indexes
> into different tablespaces?
>
> We have killed the "everything in one extent" myth haven't we?
Everybody's
> comfortable with tables that have 100's of extents?
>
> And while we're at it, could we include the Oracle 9 multiple blocksizes
> and how to use them. The best that I've seen is indexes in big blocks,
> tables in small blocks --- uh, oh, time to separate tables and indexes.
>
> Maybe we will never get rid of the OFA myth.
>
> Just venting.
>
> Tired of arguing in front of management with Oracle certified DBAs that
> RAID 5 is not good, OFA is unnecessary, and uniform extents is the only
way
> to go. Looking for a big stick to catch their attention with.
>
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author: Tim Gorman
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
__________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this email is confidential and
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. Thomson Scientific will accept no responsibility
or liability in respect to this email other than to the addressee.
If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately via email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________________________
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author: Hitchman, Peter
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
