RE: separate tablespaces for tables and indexes

Sorry if I missed this already, but ...

Say session A has already read the index and is doing some datafile access, when along comes session B with an index range scan. My understanding is that there's only one read/write head on the disk and contention results. Of course 10s or 100s of sessions would compound the issue. Is this reasoning flawed?

Thanks,
Jon Knight

 -----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of David Sharples

Sent:	Monday, December 13, 2004 1:31 PM
To:	Oracle-L Freelists; thomas.mercadante_at_labor.state.ny.us
Subject:	Re: separate tablespaces for tables and indexes

well a table and its index were never accessed at the same time anyway - always serially., always one then the other - so it doesnt matter if they were in the same tabespace / disk anyway.

Back in the old todays, before SAN's and striping and all that placing hot segments on different disks was a good idea, but a process using a table and its index would never benefit from it

So doing it for performance was / is a 'myth'. For management sure splitting them could be a good idea

see
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p=4950:8:::::F4950_P8_DISPLAYID:901906930 328
for a good explanation

Dave
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:19:56 -0500, Mercadante, Thomas F <thomas.mercadante_at_labor.state.ny.us> wrote:
> David,
>
> Please describe your definition of "never". :)
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Sharples [mailto:davidsharples_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 2:08 PM
> To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> Subject: Re: separate tablespaces for tables and indexes
>
> never was any need

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l