You are right. That's why I suggested to try it out first before making a
judgement.
"Norman Dunbar" <Norman.Dunbar_at_lfs.co.uk> wrote in message
news:E2F6A70FE45242488C865C3BC1245DA703A4990F_at_lnewton.leeds.lfs.co.uk...
> Morning Tingl,
>
> OK, I'm prepared to believe that in your case it has not affected
> performance at all/all that much - after all, I don't know your system.
>
> It *could* be that your systems make little use of the temp tablespace
> anyway and does all sorting in memory for example, and if so, this is a
> good thing. However, on my system(s) here we have large sorts that do
> spill over onto disc sometimes, and having only one space management
> lock in the entire database *will* cause severe performance problems
> when temp segments need to be allocated and deallocated because of a
> permanent temp tablespace.
>
> I'm talking too about tables which have hundreds of millions of rows in
> them - not SCOTT.EMP stuff - trust me, when your temporary tablespace is
> permanent, you *will* have performance problems as soon as you try to
> use it.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Norm.
>
> -------------------------------------
> Norman Dunbar
> Database/Unix administrator
> Lynx Financial Systems Ltd.
> mailto:Norman.Dunbar_at_LFS.co.uk
> Tel: 0113 289 6265
> Fax: 0113 289 3146
> URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com
> -------------------------------------
>
>
Received on Wed May 07 2003 - 20:07:13 CDT
