Re: 30 instances on one host

"Joel Garry" <joel-garry_at_home.com> wrote in message news:91884734.0206222315.17c129a3_at_posting.google.com...
> > Well, as we've seen on this newsgroup, this doesn't stand up, and Ault
> > doesn't/didn't know what he was talking about. If he'd said tables and
> > rollback segments, fair enough.
>
> How about reading the first sentence of this Abstract:
> http://www.orapub.com/cgi/genesis.cgi?p1=sub&p2=abs106
>
> Now, what part of "faster" do you not understand?

I have two comments to make on this.

1. A paper written in 1995 for oracle 6 & 7 may well suffer when applied in a 2002 environment in oracle 9i.
2. Where does the paper refer to seperating tables and indexes for performance gain anyway. Once I'd registered I only found reference to

Tablespace contents must be separated to a) minimize free space fragmentation, b) minimise IO request contention and c) maximise administrative flexibility.

none of these requirements (except possibly c) but there I remain unconvinced) can be held to show that you should separate data and index segments.

These are the principles the 'rule' given is "For each database create the following special tablespaces in addition to those needed for application segments

SYSTEM - data dictionary only
TEMP - temporary segments only
RBS - rollback.
TOOLS - general purpose tools only
USERS - miscellaneous user segments. "

Note no separation of data and indexes. just separating by type (of access primarily). Indeed if there was this huge benefit why do we have a system tablespace and not a system_data tablespace and a system_index tablespace.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK