Re: ASSM vs. non-ASSM
From: Gerard H. Pille <ghp_at_skynet.be>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:34:11 +0100
Message-ID: <4f228ba8$0$5040$ba620e4c_at_news.skynet.be>
mhoys wrote:
> 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
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:34:11 +0100
Message-ID: <4f228ba8$0$5040$ba620e4c_at_news.skynet.be>
mhoys wrote:
> 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
I assure you, it doesn't depend. We are on 10.2.0.5 too, hoping this recent release would solve it.
We have some twenty sessions inserting and updating, a couple of others deleting. But faster than I can type in any way. Received on Fri Jan 27 2012 - 05:34:11 CST