Matthias Hoys wrote:
> <schonlinner_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1126686836.529573.152920_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>we have an Oracle 10g database on a HP/UX machine (parallel queries
>>enabled). Users access the database and perform selects on the tables,
>>sometimes very large selects. Additionally during monthly production
>>huge amounts of data need to be put into the database. Currently the
>>database is not productive, we are only testing...
>>
>>I first created a single 30GB temp tablespace for the database and
>>measured the performance of queries. After that I created 10
>>3-GB-temp-tablespaces and assigned them to a tablespace group, and
>>assigned the tablespace group as a temporary tablespace to the user
>>executing the queries. The performance then was slightly better.
>>
>
>
> Mmm ... I don't quite understand why the performance of the small
> tablespaces was better than using 1 big tablespace - were all tablespaces
> created on the same disks ? I guess you could see performance improvements
> if you have different temp tablespaces on different disks ?
With any large system who has one disk? Who doesn't stripe? Who
with a large system would ever do something so counterproductive?
Why not put it all on one LUN while they're at it?
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Received on Wed Sep 14 2005 - 22:46:30 CDT
