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
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
: 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
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
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
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
:
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
:
Sent by: Subject: RE: oraperf comment
[EMAIL PROTECTED
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo