Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re:RE: TSPITR and one table per tablespace

Re:RE: TSPITR and one table per tablespace

From: <dgoulet_at_vicr.com>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 13:13:34 -0400
Message-Id: <10496.105590@fatcity.com>


True, a partitioned table is generally spread across several tablespaces, and I've done that. But on the other hand, I don't have just one partition of one table in a tablespace, but all partitions of related tables in the same tablespace. This way I have only one tablespace to mess with when doing periodic maintenance which was the intent. Also, although I like the idea of one application per tablespace I also share the opinion of breaking a very large application up across several tablespaces based on the activity of the underlying tables. I like to group tables as reference, low activity and high activity. Define "activity" as the amount of insert, update, delete actions taken on the tables. Again, when maintenance time comes you only have to mess with one tablespace at a time. I still don't like the ides of one table per tablespace.

____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject: RE: TSPITR and one table per tablespace Author: "A. Bardeen" <abardeen1_at_yahoo.com> Date: 5/12/00 11:54 AM

And what, pray tell, is one of the common implementations of a partitioned table, but to put each partition into its own tablespace?

I agree that it would be pretty foolish in an OLTP db which is likely to have thousands of tables (ever worked with a BAAN db?!), but for DSS environments with a small number of very large tables this doesn't seem so foolish, especially if running Oracle7 where partitioned tables aren't available.

Just playing devil's advocate ;)

Received on Sat May 13 2000 - 12:13:34 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US