Re: Re: oraperf comment

2002-10-23 Thread Connor McDonald
The main problem as I see it is that you might be lucky in getting IO balance with a tables-here-indexes-there approach in rule based databases, where pretty much the only thing Oracle can do is table scan and single block index read. But since 7.3, and even more so with the more recent releases,

Re: oraperf comment

2002-10-23 Thread Yechiel Adar
: Re: oraperf comment Yechiel, You had mentioned only one possible scenario (i.e. "user A accesses table while user B simultaneously accesses index") where there are several other possible, equally-likely scenarios (i.e. "user A accesses table while user B simultan

Re: oraperf comment

2002-10-22 Thread Yechiel Adar
: 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 ofmyths that have persisted with Oracle over the years, the ideathat some performance

RE: oraperf comment

2002-10-22 Thread Markham, Richard
me as i'm looking for guidance. =) -Original Message-From: Yechiel Adar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 5:44 AMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: Re: oraperf comment Hello Tim I beg to differ. Without raid it is better to put i

RE: oraperf comment

2002-10-22 Thread Markham, Richard
of "locking problem" at fatcity... - Original Message - From: Tim Gorman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 6:35 AM Subject: Re: oraperf comment Why?What are the chances of preciselythat scenariohappening, as opposed to Oracle doing conc

Re: oraperf comment

2002-10-22 Thread Yechiel Adar
D] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 6:35 AM Subject: Re: oraperf comment Why?What are the chances of preciselythat scenariohappening, as opposed to Oracle doing concurrent I/O to tables for both users A and B? Or to indexes for both users A and B simultaneously? Splitting tables a

Re: oraperf comment

2002-10-22 Thread Yechiel Adar
: Markham, Richard To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 5:03 PM Subject: RE: oraperf comment I'm a little confused when one is talking about putting indexes and tables into seperate TABLESPACES and the other is talking about seperate DISKS

RE: oraperf comment

2002-10-22 Thread Rajesh . Rao
: Sent by: Subject: RE: oraperf comment [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: oraperf comment

2002-10-22 Thread Tim Gorman
whether they are tables or indexes, one can make better determinations on how to distribute I/O across non-RAID devices. Hope this helps... -Tim - Original Message - From: Yechiel Adar To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 10

Re: Re: oraperf comment

2002-10-22 Thread Stephane Faroult
Yechiel, You had mentioned only one possible scenario (i.e. user A accesses table while user B simultaneously accesses index) where there are several other possible, equally-likely scenarios (i.e. user A accesses table while user B simultaneously accesses table, user A accesses index

Re: oraperf comment

2002-10-21 Thread Tim Gorman
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 ofmyths that have persisted with Oracle over the years, the ideathat some performance benefitexists from I/Oparallelism

Re: oraperf comment

2002-10-21 Thread Jared . Still
Ray, In addition, there are apps that expect to find indexes and data in separate locations. SAP is one of those. Jared Ray Stell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/21/2002 01:43 PM Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL