Re: partitioned table-number of tablespaces (oracle 10g2)
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:17:57 +1100
Message-ID: <ief9s0$hof$1_at_news.eternal-september.org>
Mark D Powell wrote,on my timestamp of 17/12/2010 2:37 AM:
> If you assign each partition to its own tablespace probably should be
> based on expected partition size and your space management policies
> and backup/restore plan.
>
> If each partition is only a couple of gigabytes and you use 32G files
> then assigning each partition to its own tablespace seems overkill.
> On the other hand if each is around 20g and you like to keep all your
> tablespaces close to the same size for restore of any tablespace takes
> about the same amount of time as restoring any other tablespace then
> you may want to split them up. You may determine that assigning two
> to four partitions to the same tablespace makes the most sense.
>
> It is a matter of preference, not best practice.
Absolutely. Or rather simply:
a matter of analysis of each situation and its requirements.
I'm getting a bit fed-up with all these "best practice" "cookie cutter" "solutions" that 90% of the time have nothing to do with the particular problem at play.
Oracle is a general purpose database, by definition there cannot be a "best practice" that copes with ALL setup situations.
Enough already with the "press the button and switch off brain" dba!
(for those less versed in Usenet: this is a general rant prompted by what Mark
said. It is NOT directed at Mark or the OP.
Rest.
Go back to mindlessly clicking on grid screens.
Or whatever else takes your fancy...)
Received on Fri Dec 17 2010 - 03:17:57 CST