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

Jitendra Patel 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.
>>>
>>>
>
>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.
>
>

When did you first start to believe that Oracle is a single user system? When did you first start to believe that Oracle and the operating system serialize disk access?
When did you first start to believe that a single disk on a workstation equated with a production Oracle database?

Your statement is absolutely incorrect. What needs to be spread across disk is I/O. Whether that I/O comes
from indexes or tables is irrelevant.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)