Path: news.easynews.com!easynews!news.he.net!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: yong321@yahoo.com (Yong Huang) Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server Subject: Re: Sparse TEMP files Date: 7 Jul 2002 20:52:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <3D27E270.D86488D9@ureach.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.94.8.250 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1026100341 4529 127.0.0.1 (8 Jul 2002 03:52:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Jul 2002 03:52:21 GMT Xref: easynews comp.databases.oracle.server:153342 X-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:49:34 MST (news.easynews.com) Karen wrote in message news:<3D27E270.D86488D9@ureach.com>... > b) the performance > will be slower for the first queries that use the tablespace. I'd like to know why the first use of a sparse tempfile would be slower than if the file were actually filled with data. If it *is* indeed true, it's probably not because the "holes" have to be written with real data; it may be because the inode pointers have to point somewhere instead of nowhere? Do you have a benchmark or a theoretical proof? Yong Huang