Re: Myth revisited ...

From: Jonathan Lewis <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:02:58 -0000
Message-ID: <bpaocc$ov9$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>

I don't think multiple block sizes really changes the argument. I think the line that was generally accepted after the last round of discussion was that you separated objects because of different characteristic behaviour.

If it is the characteristic of an object that it's behaviour would benefit from being in a tablespace with a different block size, then it goes in a different tablespace. It's just another dimension to categorising objects and their behaviour patterns.

I would object very strongly to any ideas like:

Separate tables from indexes because tables should be in 8K blocks and indexes should be in 16K blocks.
which is the sort of area that people would be heading towards if they got carried away with the question you raised.

--
Regards

Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk

  The educated person is not the person
  who can answer the questions, but the
  person who can question the answers -- T. Schick Jr


One-day tutorials:
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/tutorial.html
____Belgium__November (EOUG event - "Troubleshooting")
____UK_______December (UKOUG conference - "CBO")


Three-day seminar:
see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html
____UK___November


The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html


"Hans Forbrich" <forbrich_at_yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:3FB6E237.FA9608F_at_yahoo.net...


> At the risk of being shot, drawn and quartered:

>

> I know (and agree with) the fundemental discussion that separating

> indexes and tables into separate tablespaces should not be done for

> performance reasons - in pre-Oracle9i environments!

>

> However, with Oracle9i and it's support for multiple block sizes:

Is


> there a possible performance benefit to be obtained by placing the

> tables and [some] indexes in separate tablespaces, IF the

tablespaces


> have different blocksizes?

>

> (If this has been previously discussed, please just point me to the

> approximate time frame so I can review the archives.)

>

> /Hans

Received on Mon Nov 17 2003 - 09:02:58 CST