"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<3f84f251$0$30614$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> Snid wrote:
>
> >
> > So I guess I can see why lots of people think that it's best to separate
> > indexes from tables. It doesn't mention that you should only separate them
> > for administration purposes mainly.
>
> Quite right. The advice is still there, in plain, unadorned incorrectness,
> in the performance tuning course notes for Oracle 9i (published in version
> 2.1 only a few weeks ago).
>
> Oracle are also responsible for promoting the myth that getting a segment
> into a single extent is good for performance; that PCTINCREASE 1 is a good
> idea to protect against fragmentation (it causes it); that ASSM has no
> costs; that tuning consists of getting a good buffer cache hit ratio. You
> name it, they've touted it.
>
> These days, they have TUSC to do that sort of thing for them.
>
> Regards
> HJR
what costs do ASSM have? Seems to me if your not careful you can still
end up with fragmentation. is that what you mean?
I thought seperating indexes and tables was first put into the OFA?
Not for performance reasons, but to make it easier to manage the
database?
Received on Thu Oct 09 2003 - 06:44:25 CDT
