At 04:27 PM 6/16/00 +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>Sorry for being behind here, but to make sure I'm on the right page:
>o tablespaces decouple storage from logical tables
>o a database lives in a default tablespace, unless specified
>o by default, a table will live in the default tablespace
>o (eventually) a table can be split across tablespaces
Or tablespaces across filesystems/mountpoints whatever.
>Some thoughts:
>o the ability to split single tables across disks was essential for
>scalability when disks were small. But with RAID, NAS, etc etc isn't
>that a smaller issue now?
Yes for size issues, I should think, especially if you have the
money for a large RAID subsystem. But for throughput performance,
control over which spindles particularly busy tables and indices
go on would still seem to be pretty relevant, when they're being
updated a lot. In order to minimize seek times.
I really can't say how important this is in reality. Oracle-world
folks still talk about this kind of optimization being important,
but I'm not personally running any kind of database-backed website
that's busy enough or contains enough storage to worry about it.
>o "tablespaces" would implement our less-developed "with location"
>feature, right? Splitting databases, whole indices and whole tables
>across storage is the biggest win for this work since more users will
>use the feature.
>o location information needs to travel with individual tables anyway.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
