Re: Oracle performance with Microsoft Project

"Thomas T" <T_at_T> wrote in message news:3f5f2e55$1_at_rutgers.edu...
> "Ed Stevens" <nospam_at_noway.nohow> wrote in message
> news:co2hlv8inrtb2rpa5i3ls4eiai3rtnibfb_at_4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:09:16 -0400, "Thomas T" <T_at_T> wrote:
> >
> > >Also, were separate tablespaces used for indexes & tables? Or is
> everything
> > >in one tablespace?
> > >
> > Uh oh. Does the thread title "Oracle Myths" ring any bells?
> >
>
> Ed, why is that so? I thought that multiple tablespaces spread across
> multiple drives improved performance; that a single drive's read/write
heads
> weren't jumping all over the hard drive.
>
> Or am I still thinking in mid-90's technology?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Thomas

Actually, I found the answer! Thanks for the 'pointer' to the myth. It looks like this -was- from the "old" Oracle days... made into a moot point with today's faster drives. Or- that's how my interpretation reads.

For anyone else interested, the article with the "big guns" in it can be found by the first link on this page:
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p=4950:8:::::F4950_P8_DISPLAYID:5071430793941

Looks like my "future plan" of reorganizing our storage array into multiple containers (instead of a single raid-5 container) has just disappeared from my to-do list, and I can't say I'm sorry to see it go.

Thanks,

-Thomas Received on Wed Sep 10 2003 - 09:51:21 CDT