Re: Tablespace best practices

<fitzjarrell_at_cox.net> wrote in message
news:1104110030.857422.173540_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Comments embedded.
>
> Dave wrote:
>> "Access" <idmwarpzone_NOSPAM__at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:41cf4475$0$339$ba620e4c_at_news.skynet.be...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I was wondering what the "best practices" are regarding tablespace
>> > creation
>> > :
>> > - separate tablespaces for data/indexes ?
>>
>> nope, no need
>
> For performace, I agree. For manageability, my opinion differs. I
> find it easier to manage tables and indexes if the are placed in
> separate tablespaces; if I lose an index or the entire tablespace it's
> fairly easy to recreate the tablespace and rebuild the indexes if they
> are separate from the tables.
>
>> > - separate tablespace for each schema ?
>>
>> not a bad idea - for manageability
>> > - large/medium/small objects in separate tablespaces ?
>>
>> not a bad idea, depends how wildly your sizes vary
>> > - locally managed with auto or manual segment space management ?
>>
>> up to you, auto works fine if you dont care that much
>>
>
> And I prefer to use uniform extents, to virtually eliminate
> fragmentation.
>
>> >
>> > Just wanted to hear some pro/contra's ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
> David Fitzjarrell
>

there was a paper once (i think by richard foote) which showed how fragmentation was impossible with autollocate - could be wrong though)

agree about the index thing as well - answer was written in haste (but i bet it was asked in terms of performance) Received on Sun Dec 26 2004 - 19:16:38 CST