Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Myth revisited ...

Re: Myth revisited ...

From: Hans Forbrich <forbrich_at_yahoo.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:22:06 GMT
Message-ID: <3FB6FB8D.82765628@yahoo.net>


nobody wrote:
>
> okay, it may be no better to place your indexes in a seperate database for
> performance sakes, but how then if its not worse why not do it just for
> naming sakes convention.

I assume your reference to 'database' was just a typo and you really meant tablespace.

The discussions to this point basically say: go ahead and separate indexes and tables to your heart's content, just don't do it because of performance. Separate for reasons such as administration, backup/recovery, management, symmetry on the wall chart, because it looks pretty when your drunk - any other reason is valid except performance! (Well almost any other reason.)

That said: I have no idea what you mean by 'naming sakes convention'. No insult intended, but that sounds like it's derived from a SQL*Server-ism. Received on Sat Nov 15 2003 - 22:22:06 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US