Path: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!prodigy.com!rip!c03.atl99!news.webusenet.com!diablo.voicenet.com!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Daniel Morgan Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server Subject: Re: Oracle's Myth: keep tables and indexes in separate tablespaces Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:17:37 -0700 Organization: ATS Message-ID: <1065799068.141452@yasure> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3f84f251$0$30614$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <7610580f.0310090351.1e152843@posting.google.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080308000806090608000708" Cache-Post-Path: yasure!unknown@pond178.drizzle.com X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 82 Xref: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com comp.databases.oracle.server:245029 --------------080308000806090608000708 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Geomancer wrote: >>No, Eienstein. (I guess we know why you are unemployed). >> >> > >Um, had you made several caveats and been less insulting, your point >might have been better taken. > >If the disk is not RAID striping (RAID10, 0+1, 5) then many of your >points may be correct. > >In my experience with Oracle on Windows, I demonstrated significant >slowdown with the whole database on a single non-RAID disk. > >When I moved indexes to a separate disk, undo to another and redo to a >4th disk, performance doubled! > >Not sure why, maybe it's just a Windows thing. > > Probably also a very small number of simultaneous transactions thing. -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply) --------------080308000806090608000708 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Geomancer wrote:

No, Eienstein. (I guess we know why you are unemployed).


Um, had you made several caveats and been less insulting, your point
might have been better taken.

If the disk is not RAID striping (RAID10, 0+1, 5) then many of your
points may be correct.

In my experience with Oracle on Windows, I demonstrated significant
slowdown with the whole database on a single non-RAID disk.

When I moved indexes to a separate disk, undo to another and redo to a
4th disk, performance doubled!

Not sure why, maybe it's just a Windows thing.

Probably also a very small number of simultaneous transactions thing.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

--------------080308000806090608000708--