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

"Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message news:3e2bc287$0$241$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net...
> <ctcgag_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:20030118140726.498$s2_at_newsreader.com...
> > > So you'll have to invent some
> > > other mechanism to explain why this pairing is particularly prone to
> > > write contention. Merely asserting that the index blocks and table
> blocks
> > > will be flushed in the same DBWR cycle doesn't do it, I'm afraid.
> >
> > It seems pretty prima-facie to me. If you know of something that
operates
> > here to prevent that contention, I'm all ears. But I'm no more inclined
> to
> > accept your dogma than I am the old dogma.
>
> I wonder, do you also seperate parent/child tables. It seems to me that
any
> argument that suggests tables and their indexes *inherently* content
applies
> in spades to parent/child master/detail type relationships.
>
> I obviously cannot speak for Howard, especially so recently after
suggesting
> block dumps were not often needed and then resorting to them in a
discussion
> with him and Richard, but I suspect you will find that he agrees that
> contention for the same device can and does occur in Oracle databases,

Speak away Niall!! I've said pretty much exactly this in the last few posts. But the message doesn't appear to be getting through. Hopefully, your version makes more sense than mine, and the message might get through this time.

Regards
HJR Received on Mon Jan 20 2003 - 03:56:02 CST