Goes by the name of:
William Wallace Marilyn Monroe Cloud*
*(of Final Fantasy 7)
-Original Message-
Okay, now I have an image of Tim, in a kilt, standing over a
grate, with his face painted with Blue vertical stripes and a
big sword strapped to his back!
--
Please see the
by: Subject: RE: Multiple Datafiles and
performance?
ml-errors
guess that depends on the gender of the person looking :)
--- Henry Poras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a kilt, standing over a grate
not quite Marilyn Monroe
-Original Message-
Daniel Fink
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 11:39 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Note that in previous mail, my reply starts from 2nd paragraph, the first
one wasn't indented correctly for some reason..
Tanel.
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 2:59 PM
As for the datafiles and indexfiles
Dave,
There is little about the size of datafiles to affect the performance of SQL
statements, but there is much to affect the performance of backup and
restore and administration.
Uniform-sized datafiles simplify the administration of space. The speed of
a backup or restore is a function of
If by multiple datafiles that ... you mean for a single tablespace then:
It's possible to stripe a tablespace across drives by hand, but it is no
substitute for real, genuine hardware or software striping. I'm a little
foggy on the by hand process since (I think) it is considered an archaic
In my experience, spreading datafiles across volumes (specially if you are
careful not to locate the a table's datafiles and its indexes datafiles in the same
drive) greatly increases performance.
As for the file size, I can not say because I have not tested it, but I think
it
drive I think performance should be
worst than if they were separated, right or wrong? ...
Regards,
Fermin.
-Mensaje original-
De: Tim Gorman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: jueves, 07 de agosto de 2003 17:19
Para: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Asunto: Re: Multiple Datafiles
Tim,
Indexed access is a purely sequential activity from an I/O standpoint,
putting aside the reality that a buffer cache exists. First, we access
the
root block of the index and read its contents in order to know where to
perform the next I/O (i.e. a branch block). Then we read that branch
Tim Gorman wrote:
I don't mean to be argumentative, but every time I see assertions like
these, I suspect someone has been reading some rather discredited books...
Okay, now I have an image of Tim, in a kilt, standing over a grate, with his face
painted with Blue vertical stripes and a big
: Multiple Datafiles and performance?
I don't mean to be argumentative, but every time I see assertions like
these, I suspect someone has been reading some rather
discredited books...
So, my apologies in advance, but comments are inline below...
In my experience, spreading datafiles
recipients of list
ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.comcc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Multiple Datafiles and
performance
Thanks for the knowledge dump everyone!
Based on your responses, I'll make the recommendation that our client go
with 3 2.5G datafiles. They currently are 1 2.5G and 2 1G datafiles for
the tablespace in question.
Most of our clients have less than 30 datafiles, and I doubt will find
any over 50.
] To: Multiple recipients of list
ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.comcc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Multiple Datafiles and
performance?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ity.com
Hi!
The benefits of spreading the data over as many physical access paths ( ~
disks ) using multiple datafiles notwithstanding, there is always the case
of too much. Keep in mind that at checkpoint time the DBWR need to visit
the header of every ( non read-only ) datafile. That's unlikely to
a kilt, standing over a grate
not quite Marilyn Monroe
-Original Message-
Daniel Fink
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 11:39 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Tim Gorman wrote:
I don't mean to be argumentative, but every time I see assertions like
these, I suspect someone
]
@gasper-corp.com cc:
Subject: RE: Multiple Datafiles and
performance?
Sent
ORACLE-L
Asunto: RE: Multiple Datafiles and performance?
I don't know of any advantage to uniform datafile sizes. Back in the day
some DBAs preferred uniform datafile sizes so that they could easily move
datafiles from disk to disk to balance physical IO. With modern disk
configurations
:
Sent by: Subject: RE: Multiple
Datafiles and performance?
ml-errors
08/07/2003 08:05
AM
Please respond
to ORACLE-L
In my experience, spreading
As for the datafiles and indexfiles being distributed over different
physical disks, well I can not confirm you are wrong, in our site id DID
boost the performance, and specially if you locate in separate physical
drives your redologs and datafiles (both indexes or data). Of course it
depends on
The benefits of spreading the data over as many physical access paths ( ~
disks ) using multiple datafiles notwithstanding, there is always the case
of too much. Keep in mind that at checkpoint time the DBWR need to visit
the header of every ( non read-only ) datafile. That's unlikely to be an
by: Subject: RE: Multiple Datafiles and
performance?
ml-errors
At 09:59 AM 8/7/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Hi!
The benefits of spreading the data over as many physical access paths ( ~
disks ) using multiple datafiles notwithstanding, there is always the case
of too much. Keep in mind that at checkpoint time the DBWR need to visit
the header of every ( non
I don't mean to be argumentative, but every time I see assertions like
these, I suspect someone has been reading some rather discredited books...
So, my apologies in advance, but comments are inline below...
In my experience, spreading datafiles across volumes (specially if you are
careful
24 matches
Mail list logo
