Re: ASSM vs. non-ASSM
From: mhoys <matthias.hoys_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:09:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <2409990f-5792-47bf-a499-83932b558348_at_q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 27, 9:29 am, "Gerard H. Pille" <g..._at_skynet.be> wrote:
> onedbguru wrote:
>
> > Yes, but the next time you need "more space" for that index it is
> > already allocated and will be used.
>
> This is false. The indexes keep growing for the same amount of data and queries using these
> indexes become too slow.
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:09:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <2409990f-5792-47bf-a499-83932b558348_at_q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 27, 9:29 am, "Gerard H. Pille" <g..._at_skynet.be> wrote:
> onedbguru wrote:
>
> > Yes, but the next time you need "more space" for that index it is
> > already allocated and will be used.
>
> This is false. The indexes keep growing for the same amount of data and queries using these
> indexes become too slow.
I would like to answer with "it depends" :-) Btw, I tried to develop a test case to show the performance difference between "normal" and "soufflé" B-tree indices, but I haven't been successful so far. This is on 10.2.0.5, ASSM tablespace with automatic extent allocation... What are the properties of your system, Gerard?
Matthias Hoys Received on Fri Jan 27 2012 - 03:09:33 CST