----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:39
AM
Subject: Re: oraperf comment
Ray,
I don't know exactly what was intended with the
comment, but I agree with your interpretation.
---
As far as any other reasons for the
comment...
<RANT>
In terms of myths that have persisted with
Oracle over the years, the idea that some performance
benefit exists from I/O parallelism due to separating tables and
indexes to different devices has been especially persistent. I've even
heard it described as "conventional wisdom". As a matter of fact, there is no possibility for "parallelism"
benefits on indexed I/O operations. Never has been; might
never be (though "never" is a long time)...
</RANT>
The reason is that navigating a B*Tree index
structure is inherently sequential. Think about it -- first you have
to access the "root" block. Looking inside the contents of the "root"
directs you to the next "branch" or "leaf" block in the index B*Tree
structure. You cannot seek for the next block in
parallel; you've got to look inside one block in order to know what
block to access next. Then, once you've accessed down to the final
"leaf" block, reading its contents tells you which row in the table to
access. If you are doing a "range scan" operation, then you have to go
back to the index "leaf" block in order to find the next table row to
access.
The name of the wait-event for this type
of I/O (a.k.a. "db file sequential read", a.k.a. single-block
random-access read) also suggests this "sequentialiality" (is
that a word?). Jeff Holt wrote a great paper on the reasons for
the apparent mis-naming of the wait-events "db file sequential read" and "db
file scattered read" -- I'm sure that it is downloadable from http://www.hotsos.com. Even
when "asynchronous I/O" is available and configured, indexed I/O operations
are still essentially synchronous (and non-parallel)...
There is a possibility of some form of
"parallelization" in "range-scan" operations, but there is no evidence that
this is happening. For example, while performing an indexed
range-scan, if we wanted to read a batch of index entries from the
index "leaf blocks" and submit a list of I/O requests for data blocks on the
corresponding table, we could do so. However, when I've performed
"truss" operations on an Oracle server process performing such a range-scan
operation (at least through Oracle8i), I've not seen this happening.
Purely generic "read()" operations, one at a time,
sequentially...
---
The only real advantages of separating tables
from indexes into different tablespaces are:
- different recoverability requirements
- indexes can be rebuilt instead of
restored
- data (tables and clusters) must be
restored -- cannot be "rebuilt" from anything
- different types of I/O requests
- indexes are predominantly accessed using
single-block, random read I/O (i.e. UNIQUE scans, RANGE scans, FULL
scans)
- relatively seldom are accessed with
multi-block sequentially-accessed read I/O (i.e. FAST FULL
scans)
- while tables are often accessed with a mix
of the two types of I/O, depending on the application
- OLTP usually has heavier single-block,
random read I/O due to heavy use of indexes
- DW usually has heavier multi-block,
sequentially-accessed read I/O due to heavy use of FULL table
scans
- may be advantages from this in Oracle9i
where different blocksizes are possible for different
tablespaces
These last points are related to performance,
but not in the sense that the mythical "conventional wisdom"
dictates...
Hope this helps...
-Tim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:43
PM
Subject: oraperf comment
>
> An recent oraperf report included the comment:
"Never split index
> and data files to different sets of disks."
It goes on to state that
> striping is better. If the system in
question does not have
> raid support, wouldn't it be better to split
the index and data across
> spindles? That would make the word
"Never" inappropriate here? Maybe
> this is their way of saying
don't use old technology. Is there some
> other reason I am
missing?
>
===============================================================
> Ray
Stell [EMAIL PROTECTED] (540) 231-4109
KE4TJC 28^D
> --
> Please see the official
ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> --
> Author: Ray Stell
> INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
> San
Diego, California -- Mailing list
and web hosting services
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
>
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT
spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> the message BODY, include a line
containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> (or the name of mailing list you want to
be removed from). You may
> also send the HELP command for other
information (like subscribing).