Re: Partitions on RAID 5 SAN and Tablespaces

From: Michael Austin <>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:11:47 -0500
Message-ID: <L0kGj.5120$>

Steve Howard wrote:
> On Mar 25, 3:51 pm, zip <> wrote:

>> Does it make any sense to partition an extremly large table by
>> tablespace in a SAN  RAID 5 environment or just put the partitions in
>> one BIGFILE tablespace?  I can see using tablespaces to put the files
>> on different spindles, but in a SAN is this necessary?
>> Anyone had any problem putting a very large (50 G) partition table
>> into one BIGFILE tablespace?
>> Zip

> Hi Zip,
> It's always relative, but believe it or not 50GB isn't that large. I
> would put it in multiple tablespaces, though, based on experience. We
> did this with a 2TB table last summer that was otherwise completely
> unmanageable. We can now shrink a partition if need be and reclaim
> the physical space, since each partition is in a separate tablespace.
> If you don't do this, and you shrink a partition at the "front" of the
> datafile, you may not be able to shrink the datafile.
> You also have to backup the entire table in RMAN at one time if its in
> one tablespace. You can back up different partitions one at a time if
> its in separate tablespaces. That's where we get the most bang for
> our back with partitions.
> HTH,
> Steve

agreed - 50G is small potatoes... Try managing a 250TB or a 1PB database without partitioning... Now that gets interesting... Received on Tue Mar 25 2008 - 23:11:47 CDT

Original text of this message