Re: Tablespaces structure question!

Before you dismantle the inherited table/tablespace and index/tablespace structure, find out if there was a reason they were setup that way.

One of our applications has 1101 tables all in their own tablespace. Each of these tables has its own index tablespace. Sound crazy? Not when you take performance into account. Since the application is multi-streaming, there are several processes that would be trying to open the same datafile if tables were clumped into three tablespaces. Our testing has found, that performance improves by 30% when each table has its own table and index tablespace, EVEN if the datafiles are on the same physical drive.

If performance is adequate, grouping tables into tablespaces of default sized extents is reasonable.

In article <3904AF70.B5F65BCE_at_deja.com>,   ttrivedi <ttrivedi_at_deja.com> wrote:
> Hey Gurus,
>
> Hi. I have a question which , if answered, might help me clear off
 some
> mud in my head.
> At my present client we have a tablespace structure which comprises of
> at present
> each table in its own tablespace. Yes I typed it correctly each table
 in
> its own tablespace.
> What problems ,if any ,do you guys foresee for this type of
> architecture. One of the suggestions
> that we have is to have a tablespace structure which elevates the
 tables
> as and when they grow.
> Like we have three tablespaces for the application which are
 small_tbs,
> medium_tbs and large_tbs.
> When the table grows beyond a certain point we move it to the medium
 and
> ultimately the large_tbs.
> What do you guys think of the same ?
>
> Any questions, comments, outbursts , epiphanies would be welcome.
>
> Tapan
>
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Tue Apr 25 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT