| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: Tablespace layout
Cherie,
I created a test database for our developers that contains all of the production
tables and data. The production is Oracle 7.3.4 on Novell and the test is 8.1.7 on
Linux. Being that I am limited to the number if disks that I have available and I
needed to use all available space efficiently, I opted to use LMT for the data and
indexes. Partitioning is used on the tables that contain a lot of data and span a
large date range 1993 to sysdate. Determining the size of the other tables and their
time frame for usage I was able to determine the best uniform size for the LMT. All
tables that are static and small reside in 1 table spaces determined by their usage(
all of the time, infrequent). Tables that contain daily updated, weekly updated,and
monthly updated are of different size and volume therefore the LMT extents were
tailored differently. The large tables that contain current and historic data are
partitioned by date range and have different LMT extents as needed. The time and
effort spent in laying out the tablespaces and datafiles was well worth it. The free
space is at a minimum and as the data grows or shrinks the extents are reused with the
LMT and uniform sizing for each tablespace. The original database has 31 tablespaces
with approx 200 tables. The test database has 153 tablespaces that handle the 200
tables.The free space is considerably less on the LMT uniform extent server as like
size requirements are combined where ever possible. The LMT and partitioning has also
allowed me to remove some views that joined current and historic tables to present to
the user. Not using the view decreased data access time and allowed the use of the
indexes on the partitions. The partitioned tablespaces are smaller as the data is
broken down by year (Megs as compared to Gigs) as compared to current( 6mo) and
historic (8 years).
I feel that if you have the option and the time to manage your tablespaces then you
will have better control over your disk space. I know that it takes time to set
everything up and get it implemented but your space usage and access time should
improve noticeable.
ROR mª¿ªm
>>> Cherie_Machler_at_gelco.com 08/28/01 02:26PM >>>
I've been thinking a lot about our tablespace layout for our data warehouse. Our warehouse is approaching 200Gig and is almost out of space on disk. I'm getting another 75 Gig this weekend and am trying to plan the best use for that 75Gig.
Our current data tablespace layout is that we have two tablespaces for small, medium, and large data tables and the same for indexes. So it's something like this:
SM_DATA01
SM_DATA02
MED_DATA01
MED_DATA02
LG_DATA01 LG_DATA02 SM_IDX01 SM_IDX02
Our largest tables are partitioned. However the partitions are not split out into separate tablespaces but go into the same medium and large tablespaces as non-partitioned tables. Theoretically, I suppose that this is not a problem if, when partitions are dropped every month, the resulting space is reused 100%. I'm not sure if it is.
Here is my question. My DBA team members feel that it's fine to have
tables with a variety of extent sizes in the same tablespace as long as
they are all multiples of each other (50, 100, 400, 2000, etc.). My
concern
is that this setup is fine when the smaller tables need to extend but when
the larger tables need to extend, they can't pull together enough
contiguous
space and I keep having to add more. I'd prefer to have only one size of
extent in each tablespace and keep it very pure that way. Then I know
every single extent can be reused. So I am considering increasing the
number of tablespaces so we have something more like this:
1kdata
10kdata
100kdata
1mdata
10mdata
100mdata
1000mdata
1kidx
10kidx
100kidx
1midx
10midx
100midx
1000midx
I would also probably split them out into at least two tablespaces for each
level.
Maybe not for the smaller sizes, but for the larger sizes.
I have several issues I'm trying to keep in mind. One is the ease of
maintenance
for initial creation and ongoing upkeep. I don't want to have too many
tablespaces
if I don't need to. Another issue is mean time to recover. If we lose a
single tablespace,
I'd prefer to have to recover fewer files. The maximum file size we are
using is 2Gig.
We need to keep our recovery time under four hours total.
Probably the biggest issue I'm facing now is the sheer size of the large
tablespaces.
They are so big and bulky that it's almost impossible to reorg them or even
just
clean them up. I think that if I had more smaller tablespaces, I would
have more
options. This database is still at 8.0.4 and it's going to be a while
before it can be
upgraded so that limits my options for reorging as well. All cleanup has
to be done
in a series short Sunday windows. I don't have the luxury of a tool for
doing this
reorg so have to do it manually.
Another issue is partitions. We are dropping the old partitions on the
main fact
table once a month. We are not currently planning on dropping any of the
other partitions.
The tables have a variety of partition names and schemes. Some are
partitioned yearly,
monthly, quarterly, half-yearly. There is no consistency. I'm debating
whether I should
split each partition out into it's own tablespace. That would be almost a
hundred tablespaces.
Or just the table that we're dropping partitions on monthly. That would
be about 50 tablespaces.
Or should I just leave them all in the same tablespaces as non-partitioned
tables?
We are using Sun Solaris 2.6 on an E10K. We have EMC disk and Veritas
file manager.
Using version 8.0.4 of Oracle, as I said. Using RMAN and Veritas for
backups.
Any feedback, ideas, suggestions, things to watch out for, think about,
etc. would be greatly
appreciated. This is going to take a lot of time and effort to do and I
don't want to get all the
work done and find out it doesn't work as well as I hoped and have to redo
everything.
Thanks for your time,
Cherie Machler
Oracle DBA
Gelco Information Network
-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: INET: Cherie_Machler_at_gelco.com Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Ron Rogers INET: RROGERS_at_galottery.org Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).Received on Wed Aug 29 2001 - 08:55:50 CDT
 |
 |