In article <ac5no802ohh_at_drn.newsguy.com>, you said (and I quote):
> >
> >call me a dreamer, but if you put tables and indexes in same tablespace
> >and spread that tablespace over a number of devices you get EXACTLY the
> >same result as above.
>
> you might even find you get BETTER ;)
>
> the goal -- even IO distribution.
>
> puttting indexes on disk1 and data on disk2 -- you may well find your index
> (much more cacheable in general then the data) results in very very little
> physical IO to disk 1. Disk 2 on the other hand it getting beat up.
>
> stripe disk1 and disk2 and you'll get even io in this simple case.
>
Exactly! Thanks for explaining it much better than I can. That is
usually the problem that surfaces next when people do the "table/index
shuffle". Much better to just stripe the darn thing to start with. Even
distribution of I/O is the name of the game, not the logical partitioning
of the same.
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam
Received on Sat May 18 2002 - 09:48:04 CDT
