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

"Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Wczhb.145191$bo1.144265_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> There is no doubt that Oracle itself is the biggest myth spreader of them
> all. Just look at it's own OTN site where you can still read why
> indexes/tablespaces should be split for performance, that Oracle indexes
> become unbalanced over time and need frequent rebuilding
They don't become unbalanced???
Could you tell me more about it?
Because the Documentation on my 9i CD says "Serializing within Indexes
Use of sequences, or timestamps, to generate key values that are indexed themselves can lead to database hotspot problems, which affect response time and throughput. This is usually the result of a monotonically growing key that results in a right-growing index. To avoid this problem, try to generate keys that insert over the full range of the index. This results in a well-balanced index that is more scalable and space efficient. You can achieve this by using a reverse key index or using a cycling sequence to prefix and sequence values."

So, presumably there are unbalanced indexes too. I mean, I can accept that there are all sorts of docs on the otn but I always assumed that the delivered doc always has the final word.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker Received on Fri Oct 10 2003 - 11:01:00 CDT