right on both counts Hans.. guess I should only answer questions before
consuming beer.
"Hans Forbrich" <forbrich_at_yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:3FB6FB8D.82765628_at_yahoo.net...
> nobody wrote:
> >
> > okay, it may be no better to place your indexes in a seperate database
for
> > performance sakes, but how then if its not worse why not do it just for
> > naming sakes convention.
>
> I assume your reference to 'database' was just a typo and you really
> meant tablespace.
>
> The discussions to this point basically say: go ahead and separate
> indexes and tables to your heart's content, just don't do it because of
> performance. Separate for reasons such as administration,
> backup/recovery, management, symmetry on the wall chart, because it
> looks pretty when your drunk - any other reason is valid except
> performance! (Well almost any other reason.)
>
> That said: I have no idea what you mean by 'naming sakes convention'.
> No insult intended, but that sounds like it's derived from a
> SQL*Server-ism.
Received on Sun Nov 16 2003 - 17:07:47 CST
