Re: Tuning index tablespaces

Tarby777 wrote:

> Thanks Daniel. I have read some of what some of those people have
> written on the subject, and I'm fine with the the basic argument, which
> seems to be that because access is sequential (index block THEN data
> block) rather than concurrent, no single process will execute faster by
> virtue of having the data and the index on separate disks. However, I
> would still maintain that process A (hammering indexes) and process B
> (hammering data) will experience lower contention if the data and the
> indexes are separated.

They always are... You have index blocks, and you have data blocks. Doesn't matter if they are in the same file, database, SAN, or galaxy.

They are NOT in the same block!

Just go ahead and test it. Prove me wrong.

El Burro hasn't given any figures, has he, as proof, probably he could not disclose these 'due to non-disclosure agreements'.

-- 
Regards,
Frank van Bortel

Top-posting is one way to shut me up...