Re: 2 gig per raw space

David Williams wrote: > > In article <01bc3606$1b73aa40$8cce98c2@bonzi>, Dragi Raos > <bonzi@4mate.hr> writes > > > >rows data only, not indices), how much each index is using etc. Also note > >that OnLine (at least older versions) doesn't like more than 8 extents (it > >needs an extra read to access them beyond that). > > > When on my Online Performance Tuning course at Informix UK. SOmeone > asked if this was still the case and the instructor checked with the > Online development team in the states. They checked the source code to > Online and could find no 'extra' code for reading >8 entents. This > appears to be a myth that has sprung up because > Well, If you think about it, a greatly fragmented table, meaning large number of extents, not fragmented as in PDQ, is not really a good thing. Unless UNIX has changed to terribly in the last couple of years, you will incur overhead in page swapping. (Memory Management.) While most smaller systems won't notice it too teribly, larger systems, ie large tables intermixed and highly accessed will not get good performance. By separating your data, limiting your extents you will get better performance. I can go in to more detail offline if you want. Send me some e-mail. But please note that you have to remove the NOSPAM shit in my headers. This is to confuse those evil spammers who should be shot. -Mikey -- #include <std_disclaimer.h> /* Mike Segel (MS385) */ #include <No_Spam.h> #ifdef OFFENDED_BY_CONTENT The author takes no responsibility for this post. Any resemblence to a coherent rational thought is purely coincidence. -The Management. #endif