Re: TEMP tablespace: a big one or 10 small ones?

Matthias Hoys wrote:
> <schonlinner_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1126686836.529573.152920_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > we have an Oracle 10g database on a HP/UX machine (parallel queries
> > enabled). Users access the database and perform selects on the tables,
> > sometimes very large selects. Additionally during monthly production
> > huge amounts of data need to be put into the database. Currently the
> > database is not productive, we are only testing...
> >
> > I first created a single 30GB temp tablespace for the database and
> > measured the performance of queries. After that I created 10
> > 3-GB-temp-tablespaces and assigned them to a tablespace group, and
> > assigned the tablespace group as a temporary tablespace to the user
> > executing the queries. The performance then was slightly better.
> >
>
> Mmm ... I don't quite understand why the performance of the small
> tablespaces was better than using 1 big tablespace - were all tablespaces
> created on the same disks ? I guess you could see performance improvements
> if you have different temp tablespaces on different disks ?

As long as people are looking at these things, just wondering if there is something analogous to this:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.oracle.server/msg/b4f0a454919544f7?dmode=source&hl=en

I'm just wondering if there is an inherent management issue besides the performance issue.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.eigelb.at/HP/Links/SpecialEffects/Grappa/DelayedTrace/