RE: Tablespace layout

From: Satar Naghshineh <Satar.Naghshineh_at_irvine.mellesgriot.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:10:26 -0700
Message-ID: <F001.0037A3CC.20010828123027@fatcity.com>

Hi Cherie,

Just shove all your data on a RAID 5 (great for data Warehouses) and forget about it. If that is not possible, then stick with what your DBA team has stated about everything being ok as long as the extents are multiples of one another.

Regards,
Satar Naghshineh

-----Original Message-----

From:   Cherie_Machler_at_gelco.com [SMTP:Cherie_Machler_at_gelco.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, August 28, 2001 7:27 PM
To:     Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L

Subject: Tablespace layout

I've been thinking a lot about our tablespace layout for our data warehouse. Our warehouse is approaching 200Gig and is almost out of space on disk. I'm getting another 75 Gig this weekend and am trying to plan the best use for that 75Gig.

Our current data tablespace layout is that we have two tablespaces for small, medium, and large data tables and the same for indexes. So it's something like this:

SM_DATA01
SM_DATA02
MED_DATA01
MED_DATA02

LG_DATA01
LG_DATA02
SM_IDX01
SM_IDX02

MED_IDX01
MED_IDX02
LG_IDX01
LG_IDX02 I think that theoretically, all of the tables in each of the tablespaces were supposed to have the same sized extents when they were originally created. However, over time, there are multiple sizes of extents in the large and medium tablespaces. Even though we show significant free space, it is fragmented and coalescing can not put together enough contiguous space to reuse a lot of the available space.

Our largest tables are partitioned. However the partitions are not split out into separate tablespaces but go into the same medium and large tablespaces as non-partitioned tables. Theoretically, I suppose that this is not a problem if, when partitions are dropped every month, the resulting space is reused 100%. I'm not sure if it is.

Here is my question. My DBA team members feel that it's fine to have tables with a variety of extent sizes in the same tablespace as long as they are all multiples of each other (50, 100, 400, 2000, etc.). My concern
is that this setup is fine when the smaller tables need to extend but when the larger tables need to extend, they can't pull together enough contiguous
space and I keep having to add more. I'd prefer to have only one size of extent in each tablespace and keep it very pure that way. Then I know every single extent can be reused. So I am considering increasing the number of tablespaces so we have something more like this:

1kdata
10kdata
100kdata
1mdata
10mdata
100mdata
1000mdata
1kidx
10kidx
100kidx
1midx
10midx
100midx
1000midx

I would also probably split them out into at least two tablespaces for each level.
Maybe not for the smaller sizes, but for the larger sizes.

I have several issues I'm trying to keep in mind. One is the ease of maintenance
for initial creation and ongoing upkeep. I don't want to have too many tablespaces
if I don't need to. Another issue is mean time to recover. If we lose a single tablespace,
I'd prefer to have to recover fewer files. The maximum file size we are using is 2Gig.
We need to keep our recovery time under four hours total.

Probably the biggest issue I'm facing now is the sheer size of the large tablespaces.
They are so big and bulky that it's almost impossible to reorg them or even just
clean them up. I think that if I had more smaller tablespaces, I would have more
options. This database is still at 8.0.4 and it's going to be a while before it can be
upgraded so that limits my options for reorging as well. All cleanup has to be done
in a series short Sunday windows. I don't have the luxury of a tool for doing this
reorg so have to do it manually.

Another issue is partitions.   We are dropping the old partitions on the main fact
table once a month. We are not currently planning on dropping any of the other partitions.
The tables have a variety of partition names and schemes. Some are partitioned yearly,
monthly, quarterly, half-yearly.   There is no consistency.   I'm debating whether I should
split each partition out into it's own tablespace.   That would be almost a hundred tablespaces.
Or just the table that we're dropping partitions on monthly.   That would be about 50 tablespaces.
Or should I just leave them all in the same tablespaces as non-partitioned tables?

We are using Sun Solaris 2.6 on an E10K. We have EMC disk and Veritas file manager.
Using version 8.0.4 of Oracle, as I said. Using RMAN and Veritas for backups.

Any feedback, ideas, suggestions, things to watch out for, think about, etc. would be greatly
appreciated. This is going to take a lot of time and effort to do and I don't want to get all the
work done and find out it doesn't work as well as I hoped and have to redo everything.

Thanks for your time,

Cherie Machler
Oracle DBA
Gelco Information Network

--

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--

Author:
INET: Cherie_Machler_at_gelco.com

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------

To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). Received on Tue Aug 28 2001 - 14:10:26 CDT