Re: Multiple Tablespaces

From: Daniel A. Morgan <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:16:51 +0000
Message-ID: <3C56AED3.B3D7AE0E@exesolutions.com>

I can't imagine any rational reason. But then, for that matter, I can't understand a production database in which new objects are added on a monthly basis. To me it sounds like a prima facia case of 'bad architecture'.

I have worked on hundreds of applications at tens of companies ranging in size up to Fortune 500 and apps in the Terabyte range and never yet seen 100 tablespaces, much less 230+, except with something like Oracle Financials. but 25 tablespaces under 10MB, to me, is incomprehensible.

Get a new architect.

Daniel Morgan

Dan Souza wrote:

> We have a 600GB+ DSS. It grows (in terms of new objects added) on a
> monthly basis. Our data architect is incredibly eager on multiple
> tablespaces. So far, there are 230+, and there are more to come.
> Practically every large object has it's own tablespace, and even small
> ones - there are about 25 tablespaces under 10MB.
>
> Can anybody come up with a reasonable argument as to why so many
> tablespaces are a good idea? I really can't see any advantages. We
> backup using RMAN.
Received on Tue Jan 29 2002 - 08:16:51 CST