Re: Locally Managed Tablespaces ... again!!!

From: Howard J. Rogers <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 05:09:33 +1100
Message-ID: <VpCV9.25864$jM5.67630@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>

<ctcgag_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20030116123115.542
>
> I've seen the table/index read serialization/contention done to death, but
> haven't seen much here about table/index write serialization/contention.
>
> The only write contention into datafiles should be on DBWR, so the fact
> that the blocks were dirtied in serial should no longer matter when DBWR
> gets around to writing them, would it?
>
> Xho

Why? You think a single DBWR suddenly acquires the ability to perform multiple writes simultaneously?

Or that multiple DBWx's deliberately parallelize (and thus create contention) writes to indexes and tables? Like, DBWR has a clue *what* it's writing?

HJR Received on Thu Jan 16 2003 - 12:09:33 CST