Re: Single vs Multiple tablespaces

From: Martin Klier <>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:09:39 +0200
Message-ID: <>


M Hand schrieb:
> So, I'm interested to know if anyone is using a single application
> tablespace layout? Any regrets?

I just like to reduce the number of tablespaces as far as possible, and, by the way, I am using bigfile tablespaces whever possible as well. But that's another topic.

My arguments randomly organized, please don't see any ranking in the order here:

  • KISS: Why should I have to think about which TBS to use for what schema/table today? All blocks are equal, no matter where are they coming from.
  • Standardization: A special KISS need, but I like to have all Multi-Purpose DBs with the same tablespace name(s), to simplify schema exchange with old style exp/imp.
  • Some other stuff is crap: e.g. "saving overhead" is nonsense: Most overhead comes from the number of segments and their management. Exporting schemas by picking tablespaces is long-gone.
  • Please folks, don't be mislead to choose different block sizes for one or more tablespaces (from the DB value), or - maybe worse - bring this as an argument here... :)

=> It's lots of personal taste in choosing the way, in the end I don't think that there's a real measurable difference in performance or maintainability.

Best regards
Martin Klier

Usn's IT Blog for Linux, Oracle, Asterisk

Received on Wed Jul 29 2009 - 11:09:39 CDT

Original text of this message