in my database, i only have around 50 tables.
do you think it is a good idea to setup 50 tablespace and
put each table in one tablespace?
guru is on the way!!!!
Okay, pesonally and of the cuff, I'd say I wouldn't do it. Fair enough you'll reduce fragmentation in each tablespace, since your extent size for each table should be uniform. BUT..you can do that with a Locally Managed Tablespaces.
Also, you might be doing it to reduce I/O on each drive, but to get that benefit, you'd need to put each tablespace on an indivudual drive, 50 drives, and you were looking to reduce your Single point of failure you'd need 100 drives.
If your tablspaces are one the SAME drives, your not saving anything, you'll just increase your admin tasks. Minimization of you tablespace, grouping the same size tables and their usages together.
I agree. It's a fine line between keeping your I/O distributed and keeping your admin duties in the realm of the sane. Besides, a lot depends on how many file systems you have and how many I/O controllers you have. If you have 1 filesystem, you can break it up any way you want and you will get very similar performance because your data can only move as fast as your physical disk.
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width