大家好,能否有人告诉我为什么我们要为索引和数据创建不同的表空间呢?
许多人普遍认为将索引和表格保存在不同的表空间中可以提高性能。但现在许多权威专家已经认为这是一个谬论(请参见此Ask Tom线程--搜索"myth")。尽管如此,它仍然是常见的做法,因为老习惯难改!
从asktom中提取:"Index Tablespace" 问题是 Oracle 8.1.6版本的,发布于2001年
回复的第一部分
Yes, no, maybe.
The idea, born in the 1980s when systems were tiny and user counts were in the single
digits, was that you separated indexes from data into separate tablespaces on different
disks.
In that fashion, you positioned the head of the disk in the index tablespace and the head
of the disk in the data tablespace and that would be better then seeking 2 times on the
same disk.
Drives back then were really slow at seeking and typically measured in the 10's to 100's
of megabytes (if you were lucky)
Today, with logical volumes, raid, NN gigabyte (nn is rapidly becoming NNN gigabytes)
drives, hundreds/thousands of concurrent users, thousands of tables, 10's of thousands of
indexes - this sort of "optimization" is sort of impossible.
What you strive for today is to be able to manage things, to spread IO out evenly
avoiding hot spots.
Since I believe all things should be in locally managed tablespaces with UNIFORM extent
sizes, I would say that yes, indexes would be in a different tablespace from the data but
only because they are a different SIZE then the data. My table with 50 columns and an
average row size of 4k might belong in a tablespace that has 5meg extents whereas the
index on a single number column might belong in a tablespace with 512k or 1m extents.
I tend to keep my indexes separate from the data but for the above sizing reason. The
tablespaces frequently end up on the same exact mount points. You strive for even io
across your disks and you may end up with indexes and data on the same devices.
foobar_index, foobar_data, foobar_LOB
,并在其上添加了这些表空间:SYSAUX、SYSTEM、TEMP、UNDOTBS1
。使用这么多的表空间是否存在缺点? - surfmuggle