"Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:9u3ub.14700$aT.6285_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Hans Forbrich" <forbrich_at_yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:3FB6E237.FA9608F_at_yahoo.net...
> > At the risk of being shot, drawn and quartered:
> >
> > I know (and agree with) the fundemental discussion that separating
> > indexes and tables into separate tablespaces should not be done for
> > performance reasons - in pre-Oracle9i environments!
> >
> > However, with Oracle9i and it's support for multiple block sizes: Is
> > there a possible performance benefit to be obtained by placing the
> > tables and [some] indexes in separate tablespaces, IF the tablespaces
> > have different blocksizes?
> >
> > (If this has been previously discussed, please just point me to the
> > approximate time frame so I can review the archives.)
> >
> Hi Hans,
>
> I hate to be a party poop, but there's a fundamental issue that everyone
has
> missed thus far.
>
> The vast majority of Oracle databases sit on top of O/S file systems and
> file systems use buffered I/O (unless direct I/O is set).
see I've always said you should use windows <g,d&r>
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission Uk
Received on Mon Nov 17 2003 - 08:06:33 CST
