RE: TSPITR and one table per tablespace

I agree that putting every table in its own Tspace is a pretty Dilbert thing to do.

However, we run Peoplesoft and had I the disk spindles available, there are at least a dozen or so of the most heavily hit tables which I would cheerfully put individually on their own Tspace on their own spindle.

Sometimes when I see the disk activity on the RAID subsystem I think it might go into meltdown.

>----------
>From: dgoulet_at_vicr.com[SMTP:dgoulet_at_vicr.com]
>Sent: May 12 2000 15:48
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>Subject: Re:TSPITR and one table per tablespace
>
>Kapil,
>
> I'm sure that some of the list members will disagree with me, but that is
>one of the most Dilbert ideas I've heard since the VARCHAR2(255) idea.
>Assuming
>you implement such an idea, consider that each tablespace MUST consist of at
>least one file and that files CANNOT be shared across tablespaces. That
>means
>that you need one data file for each table. Now the question becomes, how
>many
>tables do you have and how many files will the OS let you have open at one
>time?? The former will be larger that the latter in a short time.
>Personally I
>like isolating one application to one tablespace as a minimum. That way, if
>I
>have to recover a tablespace then at least that application should be
>consistent
>when I'm done. Consider our PeopleSoft application with more than 2000
>tables???
>
>Sheesh, what did you buy? A sophisticated RDBMS or a very expensive file
>manager??
>
>Dick Goulet
>Senior Oracle DBA
Received on Fri May 12 2000 - 09:28:09 CDT