Re: Locally Managed Tablespaces ... again!!!

"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> It's not wrong, exactly. But it's pointless if you're doing it for the
> "old" reasons. The Oracle course doco. for performance tuning *still*
> mentions putting tables and indexes into seaparate tablespaces because it
> avoids I/O contention when the table is updated. And that's the old myth
> which is still very prevalent.
>
> As was done to death here a while back, it's simply not true. When a
> table is updated, the index maintenance activities are *serialized*, so
> that they take place after the table update. Meaning that there is *no*
> I/O contention.

I've seen the table/index read serialization/contention done to death, but haven't seen much here about table/index write serialization/contention.

The only write contention into datafiles should be on DBWR, so the fact that the blocks were dirtied in serial should no longer matter when DBWR gets around to writing them, would it?

Xho

-- 
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service              New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB