I've see different published sources say different things. The O'Reilly
book Oracle Perf. Tuning suggests separating indexes and tables into
separate tablespaces because they are inserted into and read from
concurrently. The Oracle documentation website says that there is no need
to do so because indexes are read first.
"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:5TVZ9.36177$jM5.91337_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> "OctoPrime" <OctoPrime_at_NOSPAMWhiteHouse.gov> wrote in message
> > In the old days tables and indexes needed to be separated so the index
> > and the table could be read at the same time. These days with RAID
> > and striping it's not that big of a deal because you will have sveral rw
> > heads working in concert which gives you performance above that of two
> > disk, one with tables and one with indexes.
>
> I don't know what "old days" you're talking about, nor whether your
comments
> are specifically directed towards Oracle or some other RDBMS. But it has
> never been the case that indexes and tables were read in Oracle "at the
same
> time" (at least not in 7, 8, 9i or 9i). The operations were always
> serialized, and therefore no RAID is necessary to avoid read contention on
> them.
>
> But I really don't want to get into this same issue all over again. There
> are at least two threads in the Google archives where this has been
> discussed ad nauseam.
>
> But no, RAID is not needed to make housing indexes and tables in the same
> tablespace a non-issue, generally speaking.
>
> Regards
> HJR
>
>
Received on Fri Jan 31 2003 - 15:48:36 CST
