Hans Forbrich wrote:
>>Would it be wise, for backup/recovery reasons, to create a tablespace that
>>is read-only? AFAIK, Oracle doesn't back up such a tablespace. Or, is that
>>the idea behind a static table? Any idea as to how small of a tablespace I
>>should create? Can I create a tablespace of 1 block size (8k)?
>
>
> No - IIRC the smallest tablespace is about 50K - 6 blocks. Is disk space that
> expensive where you are that you need to be worried about it to this extent?
> Also, I'm concerned - the way you ask the question leads me to believe you
> design 1 table per tablespace. Is this true?
>
> In any designs I have done, there is always at least one tablespace for
> miscellaneous tables. Many applications tend to have a few large tables, and
> then dozens or hundreds of small 'supporting' tables. In my experience, these
> tend to be relatively static, updated once a month to once a few years. I
> simply put most of these types of tables into one tablespace & then heavily
> optimize the access. Yes, this is a throwback from Oracle 6 & 7 and before high
> efficiency disk arrays but it certainly seems to have simplified admin for me.
>
>
I can second this idea. In a conversion or test environment, there tend to be
many tables that are constant from one run to the next. Keeping them separate
can save a lot of time in these cases.
--
Ed Prochak
running http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
netiquette http://www.psg.com/emily.html
--
"Two roads diverged in a wood and I
I took the one less travelled by
and that has made all the difference."
robert frost
Received on Tue Apr 08 2003 - 23:54:08 CDT
