Re: Oracle's Myth: keep tables and indexes in separate tablespaces

"Jitendra Patel" <coldrainandsnow_at_lycos.com> wrote in message news:7610580f.0310090351.1e152843_at_posting.google.com...
> > > 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.
>
> No, Eienstein. (I guess we know why you are unemployed).
>
> Imaging a system on a single disk, with the index on the innermost
> cylinder and the data on the outermost cylinder.
>
> During a index range scan, the disk will vibrate like unbalanced
> washing machine.
>
> Try it on your PC, and you can watch this first hand. (If you actually
> own a computer, that is)
>
> Yes, indexes belong on separate device, just like undo and online
> redo.
>
> A single disk cannot write to two placed at once.
>
> Had you any "real" experience, you would know that.
>
> I'll bet TUSC does not offer you work.
>
> Yeesh.

Hi Jitendra,

As I posted only a few days ago, for some bizarre reason people confuse "tables and indexes don't need to be separated for performance reasons" with "it's OK to place all indexes and tables on one disk".

They hardly mean the same thing ?????

If you have a database with (say) 4 disks for your tables and (say) 4 disks for your indexes thinking that you're somehow improving performance by separating them, I'll bet you a cappuccino that by striping both your tables and indexes together across all 8 disks, performance will not suddenly plummet as a result.

All things being equal, it might actual *improve* performance.

BTW, did Howard accidentally scratch your car in some carpark ....

Cheers

Richard Received on Thu Oct 09 2003 - 09:13:16 CDT