Re: Myth revisited ...

Jonathan Lewis wrote:
>
> I don't think multiple block sizes really changes
> the argument. I think the line that was generally
> accepted after the last round of discussion was
> that you separated objects because of different
> characteristic behaviour.
>
> If it is the characteristic of an object that it's
> behaviour would benefit from being in a tablespace
> with a different block size, then it goes in a
> different tablespace. It's just another dimension
> to categorising objects and their behaviour
> patterns.
>
> I would object very strongly to any ideas like:
> Separate tables from indexes because
> tables should be in 8K blocks and indexes
> should be in 16K blocks.
> which is the sort of area that people would be
> heading towards if they got carried away with
> the question you raised.
>

I like the way you redirect the discussion from block size to charateristics. Forces one to review the object's existance holistically.

I agree with your final paragraph - that's heading toward a new myth as well. But I wonder whether the statement about "don't separate tables and indexes - no performance benefit" isn't verging on the beginnings of a new myth in itself.

(Total and unwavering belief in Myths and Patterns is for people with limited imagination?? <g>)

Many thanks (to all) for looking at this. /Hans Received on Wed Nov 19 2003 - 18:23:05 CST