I am not sure I understand why a larger tablespace would necessarily be
prone to fragmentation of any kind. What do you mean by "OS and Oracle
block fragmentation?" Aren't the Oracle datablocks laid out on disk when
a datafile is created? Can you explain a little more?
--
Jeremiah
kmidkiff wrote:
>
> The obvious advantage beyond I/O contention and tablespace backup is less OS
> and Oracle block fragmentation of large, heavily used tablespaces. This will
> speed up performance. It therefore gives you greater control over
> fragmentation and chaining.
>
> jgroff wrote:
>
> > So the only benefit you can get from splitting tables into seperate table
> > spaces is the ability to place them on different devices?
> >
> > dave mausner wrote in message <8EB88EA7dlm_at_206.141.192.241>...
> > >NOrgSPAM_at_mcs-hh.de (Roger) wrote in
> > ><85d5cu$u3s$1_at_opal.hamburg.cityline.net>:
> > >
> > >>This is the first step, the next step ist to put this tablespaces on
> > >>different disks...
> > >>
> > >>jgroff <jgroff_at_msn.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> > >>eamVu$3W$GA.262_at_cpmsnbbsa02...
> > >>> We're experiencing some performance problems and we had a consultant
> > >>>suggest
> > >>> that we split some of the more heavily accessed/updated tables out into
> > >>> their own dedicated tablespaces.
> > >
> > >... provided that the disks are not part of the same raid-5 set.
> > >--
> > >dave mausner
Received on Wed Jan 12 2000 - 10:46:18 CST
