Re: Oracle Myths- Tablespace placement answered by Oracle

I reposted to metalink and asked for clarification. I asked, assuming the data and index are on different physical drives, is it

index read, then: data read, then: index read... OR is it
index read, then: data and index read, then: data and index read...

in quasi-pseudo-faux-graphical form:

R R R R         Index Disk
 R R R R        Data Disk

Or like this:
R R R R
X R R R

I'll report back when I get the answer.

"Nuno Souto" <nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:3ce510a9$0$15144$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <ac2ufu$mcjir$1_at_ID-114862.news.dfncis.de>, you said (and I
> quote):
> >
> > The only reliable benchmark is how it runs on your system.
>
> Yupper.
>
>
> > Even without concurrency in the strictest sense it is still beneficial
to
> > put the indexes and data on different disks. The above info relates to
one
> > query. There is nothing to stop multiple queries against the same rows
and
> > indexes from processing concurrently.
> >
> > So yes, you can get performance benefit by splitting the data and
indexes
> > onto different disks."
> >
>
>
> call me a dreamer, but if you put tables and indexes in same tablespace
> and spread that tablespace over a number of devices you get EXACTLY the
> same result as above.
>
> ;-D
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam
Received on Fri May 17 2002 - 11:15:55 CDT