Personally I never use DBCA. The manual installation scripts that I've carried over
from my 8.0 days for Windows and HP-UX still work (with minor modifications) for 9.2.
Well, I lie. When I first install a new Oracle version I use DBCA to create a database
just to see what some of the new options
and the first thing that I do is to delete the INDX tablespace!!! As well
as dropping the ORD* users, SCOTT, Tim, Tammy-Fae, Jim Bob and all the other
crappy stuff that auytomatically gets installed.
I try and get it back to the original 8.0 install!!!
Tom Mercadante
Oracle Certified Professiona
> -Original Message-
> Paul Baumgartel
>
> Loney didn't write OFA, and methinks he was taking liberties with it.
Perhaps. However I notice that DBCA in Oracle 9.2 creates a tablespace called INDX.
http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/html/A97297_01/appg_ofa.htm#sthref807
Oracle9i Adminis
Loney didn't write OFA, and methinks he was taking liberties with it.
--- Jacques Kilchoer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not commenting on the accuracy of the information, but Kevin Loney,
> in the Oracle8 DBA Handbook (1998), says the following (Chapter 3
> Logical Database Layouts), in a section
I agree, though I'm not sure if it is because indexes are more susceptible
to corruption. My guess is that given 50-50 odds, sometimes you get lucky.
Mixing tables and indexes together gives you 0% odds of losing data... :-)
Well, to add another couple of pennies worth...
In my very first gig a
Oh man... now I see the problem.
Well, IMHO, Kevin's advice is the right advice for the wrong reasons.
It's not the OFA.
Thanks, Jacques, for pointing that out.
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
Upcoming events:
- Performance Diagnosis 101: 10/28 Phoenix, 11/19 Sydney
Niall,
I think you've specified the right test.
However, whether to separate indexes from data is an easier argument.
All it takes is one of potentially dozens of reasons, and isolating
becomes the right idea.
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
Upcoming events:
- Perfo
Not commenting on the accuracy of the information, but Kevin Loney, in the Oracle8 DBA
Handbook (1998), says the following (Chapter 3 Logical Database Layouts), in a section
entitled "The Optimal Flexible Architecture (OFA)"
"Index segments should not be stored in the same tablespace as their ass
Havent' you heard about the theory of relativity?
1 - ideal - full recovery with indexes
2 - relatively less than ideal - having to rebuild indexes
It doesn't mean you should aim for 2, but you sure want to keep 2 as an
option. If you don't have separate index tablespaces, you are simply
limiting
the table data. You've never run into that?
>
>
>
>
> Tim Gorman @sagelogix.com> To: Multiple recipients of
> list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by:
Cary writes
> It *is* a good idea to separate index data from heap data
> into different tablespaces. But the reason isn't solely to
> eliminate I/O competition. Even if I/O competition isn't an
> issue for you (and the OFA Standard doesn't say that it will
> be), then it's *still* a good idea
Hi!
> * Index segments have different backup and recovery requirements than
> their corresponding heap segments. For example, as Peter mentioned, if
> you have an index block corruption event, then it's convenient to just
> offline, kill, and rebuild an index tablespace. If the indexes and data
E
#x27;ve never run into
that?
Tim Gorman To: Multiple
recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: cc:
ml-errorsSubject: Re: BAARF
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 freque
an To: Multiple recipients of list
ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: cc:
ml-errors
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,
Steve,
Thank you. I am grateful that someone else shrugs too.
I still get a lot of feedback about the OFA. Almost every conference I
go to, someone forgives me for writing the OFA Standard. And I leave not
knowing for sure where things went wrong.
A few weeks ago, one of the Oracle-L threads wen
I'd like to get rid of the myth that OFA really states all that much about
what goes in what tablespace etc. I've got a copy of the Cary's OFA paper
entitled "The OFA Standard - Oracle7 for Open Systems" dated Sept 24,
1995. (Happy belated birthday OFA!) At the end of paper there's a summary
of
f list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: BAARF
>
>
>
> And what do you suggest?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I would strongly advise
Zito"
@gridapp.com>cc:
Sent by: Subje
I would strongly advise against redo logs on RAID-0 with oracle duplexing.
Different operating systems respond more or less gracefully to the vanishing
of a storage device (which is the normal behavior of a failed disk on a
RAID-0 set on a HW array). There's too many variables possible to list o
21 matches
Mail list logo
