- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: Usage of "users" tablespace for application ta...
Operating System - HP-UX
1823967
Members
4474
Online
109667
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
юдл
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
юдл
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-18-2002 07:43 AM
тАО06-18-2002 07:43 AM
Usage of "users" tablespace for application tables
Hello :
I would like to know the advantages and disadvantages of using the "users" tablespace for creating all the tables for my application. This way, instead of having a specific tablespace created for my tables, I am using the default users tablespace.
Are there any potential problems/issues with this method?
Is it recommended to use a separate tablespace for usage by my application?
Thanks in advance,
Vinu
I would like to know the advantages and disadvantages of using the "users" tablespace for creating all the tables for my application. This way, instead of having a specific tablespace created for my tables, I am using the default users tablespace.
Are there any potential problems/issues with this method?
Is it recommended to use a separate tablespace for usage by my application?
Thanks in advance,
Vinu
2 REPLIES 2
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-18-2002 11:00 AM
тАО06-18-2002 11:00 AM
Re: Usage of "users" tablespace for application tables
The application users objects must be in separate tablespace from other user.
We create multiple tablespaces for application tables,indexes depending on the size of application objects.
All the other users , we grant users as default tablespace which is a small tablespaces relative to application tablespace.
For database monitoring tools objects like statspack, we use tools tablespace.
Thanks
AR
We create multiple tablespaces for application tables,indexes depending on the size of application objects.
All the other users , we grant users as default tablespace which is a small tablespaces relative to application tablespace.
For database monitoring tools objects like statspack, we use tools tablespace.
Thanks
AR
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-18-2002 11:47 AM
тАО06-18-2002 11:47 AM
Re: Usage of "users" tablespace for application tables
Hi,
if you talk about oracle....yes, it is strongly recommended!
If you distribute data along tablespaces, you can move parts of your database physically on your filesystem according to your needs.
Highly frequented data onto the fastest disks.
Balance index and table data onto diffrent physical disks, so that the disk access is optimized.
In addition, there is no way but to export/RE-CREATE/import the entire database if you need to reorganize the SYSTEM tablespace. If you fragment your system tablespace with user data, this would be very bad.
One thing that would fragment your SYSTEM-tablespace to hell will be, if you put your rollback segments there.
Minimum Setup would be to heave
SYSTEM, TEMP, ROLLBACK and DATA (with DATA containing both indexes and data) to avoid the fragmentation problem of the SYSTEM tablespace.
Medium Setup would be to devide DATA into DATA and INDEX and put both onto diffrent physical disks for better access performance.
Best setup would be to devide DATA into MASTERDATA/INDEX and TRANSACTIONDATA/INDEX and put them onto diffrent physical disks for best access performance.
Why ?
Consider a business transaction, reading all items of september salesorders from all companies in wonderland !
You'll gonna scan the masterdata-index for companies in wonderland (assumed the region column of your company-table is indexed properly), and read the corresponding data information from the masterdata-data tablespace.
Now you scan the transactiondata-index for the salesorders belonging to the company id you found with your previous reads and skip those that are not dated september (yes, this will require an apropriate index also). With this indexinformation the database will finally read the salesorder items from the transactiondata-data tablespace.
If wonderland has quite a lot companies, compare the diskhead-movement that is required if you have a single tablespace on a single disk (would look like tap-dancing) against access to four diffrent physical disks.
Hope this was helpfull
Volker
if you talk about oracle....yes, it is strongly recommended!
If you distribute data along tablespaces, you can move parts of your database physically on your filesystem according to your needs.
Highly frequented data onto the fastest disks.
Balance index and table data onto diffrent physical disks, so that the disk access is optimized.
In addition, there is no way but to export/RE-CREATE/import the entire database if you need to reorganize the SYSTEM tablespace. If you fragment your system tablespace with user data, this would be very bad.
One thing that would fragment your SYSTEM-tablespace to hell will be, if you put your rollback segments there.
Minimum Setup would be to heave
SYSTEM, TEMP, ROLLBACK and DATA (with DATA containing both indexes and data) to avoid the fragmentation problem of the SYSTEM tablespace.
Medium Setup would be to devide DATA into DATA and INDEX and put both onto diffrent physical disks for better access performance.
Best setup would be to devide DATA into MASTERDATA/INDEX and TRANSACTIONDATA/INDEX and put them onto diffrent physical disks for best access performance.
Why ?
Consider a business transaction, reading all items of september salesorders from all companies in wonderland !
You'll gonna scan the masterdata-index for companies in wonderland (assumed the region column of your company-table is indexed properly), and read the corresponding data information from the masterdata-data tablespace.
Now you scan the transactiondata-index for the salesorders belonging to the company id you found with your previous reads and skip those that are not dated september (yes, this will require an apropriate index also). With this indexinformation the database will finally read the salesorder items from the transactiondata-data tablespace.
If wonderland has quite a lot companies, compare the diskhead-movement that is required if you have a single tablespace on a single disk (would look like tap-dancing) against access to four diffrent physical disks.
Hope this was helpfull
Volker
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
Company
Learn About
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2025 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP