Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Joel Garry" Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server Subject: Re: TEMP tablespace: a big one or 10 small ones? Date: 15 Sep 2005 17:24:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 36 Message-ID: <1126830280.917833.264390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1126686836.529573.152920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <43287dd0$0$29280$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.116.125.178 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1126830286 18350 127.0.0.1 (16 Sep 2005 00:24:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:24:46 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <43287dd0$0$29280$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 ISA-LF Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=67.116.125.178; posting-account=YRNZ5wwAAAAg-yYjMFwy3FyWUbPiwNdq Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.oracle.server:251662 Matthias Hoys wrote: > wrote in message > news:1126686836.529573.152920@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/