Re: Index tablespace

That may depend on what RAID level you are at. Some RAID levels can be very I/O intensive in order to maintain high redunancy. RAID 0+1 (or 10) I am told is a good RAID configuration, where as RAID 5 is good for overall performance and redunancy, although it is not as fault tollarant as RAID 10.

Besides, RAID hardware is much more expensive then individual disks. I love my RAID, but a it is an expensive love.

Allen wrote:

> Yes, but what if you have a raid device? There should be no difference in
> performance
> it that case.
>
> Edwin Esser wrote:
>
> > Putting the indexes in a seperate tablespace can come in very handy when you
> > put that tablespace on a different disk. That way when you do a query, the
> > index will be accessed through disk 1, the table itself on disk 2 => better
> > performance through better response times.
> >
> > Edwin
> >
> > "Alex Yevzelman" <yevz0001_at_tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3815E9F2.4EF2619B_at_tc.umn.edu...
> > > I am wondering, what are the advantages and disadvantages of having a
> > > separate tablespace for indexes.
> > > We are converting an MS Access aplication that has ~80Mb and growing of
> > > data into Oracle 8i. Also, we are developing an application, which will
> > > have ~10Mb of data.
> > > I created a tablespace for each of these applications.
> > >
> > > Should I create a separate tablespace specifically for indexes or should
> > > I keep indexes together with the other schema object in each of the
> > > corresponding tablespaces?
> > > What are the general guidelines for this type of problem?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > Alex.
> > >
Received on Tue Oct 26 1999 - 14:09:21 CDT