Fragmentation in multiple dbspaces Vs single dbspa
IDS 9.4.FC4/HP-UX We use fragmentation strategy for almost all heavy IO tables by fragmenting in various dbspaces. That's cool. Now with IDS10, we can have multiple fragments of tables/indexes within a single dbspace. This feature is excellent from manageability point of view but I am trying to understand how divide and conqueror works in this situation to achieve better performance as dbspace with multiple fragments will be under hammer during peak IO. Surely, I am missing something. Also, any benchmark/results available with both strategies ? Thanks. --------------------------------- Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
You would use multiple fragments in the same dbspace NOT for IO isolation and load balancing, but rather to simplify administration when fragmentation is used for other manageability issues. Example: You want to have 24 months of rolling data rolling off the oldest (25th) month at the end of each month. Simplest way: create a fragment for each month and detach and later drop the oldest fragment and attach a new one for the new month. Until IDS 10 you had to have at least 24 dbspaces which is more difficult to manage than having only 12 dbspaces. In 10 you can have 10 dbspaces, one for each month of the year and create two fragments in each dbspace, this year's august frag and last year's august frag. As long as frequent queries don't perform year-to-year comparisons this will work out well. Art S. Kagel ----- Original Message ----- From: H.G <ids@iiug.org> At: 7/20 11:22:24 IDS 9.4.FC4/HP-UX We use fragmentation strategy for almost all heavy IO tables by fragmenting in various dbspaces. That's cool. Now with IDS10, we can have multiple fragments of tables/indexes within a single dbspace. This feature is excellent from manageability point of view but I am trying to understand how divide and conqueror works in this situation to achieve better performance as dbspace with multiple fragments will be under hammer during peak IO. Surely, I am missing something. Also, any benchmark/results available with both strategies ? Thanks. --------------------------------- Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! ******************************************************************************* Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
Now it makes perfect sense. Thank you very much Art. "ART KAGEL, BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEXIN" <kagel@bloomberg.net> wrote: You would use multiple fragments in the same dbspace NOT for IO isolation and load balancing, but rather to simplify administration when fragmentation is used for other manageability issues. Example: You want to have 24 months of rolling data rolling off the oldest (25th) month at the end of each month. Simplest way: create a fragment for each month and detach and later drop the oldest fragment and attach a new one for the new month. Until IDS 10 you had to have at least 24 dbspaces which is more difficult to manage than having only 12 dbspaces. In 10 you can have 10 dbspaces, one for each month of the year and create two fragments in each dbspace, this year's august frag and last year's august frag. As long as frequent queries don't perform year-to-year comparisons this will work out well. Art S. Kagel ----- Original Message ----- From: H.G At: 7/20 11:22:24 IDS 9.4.FC4/HP-UX We use fragmentation strategy for almost all heavy IO tables by fragmenting in various dbspaces. That's cool. Now with IDS10, we can have multiple fragments of tables/indexes within a single dbspace. This feature is excellent from manageability point of view but I am trying to understand how divide and conqueror works in this situation to achieve better performance as dbspace with multiple fragments will be under hammer during peak IO. Surely, I am missing something. Also, any benchmark/results available with both strategies ? Thanks. --------------------------------- Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! ******************************************************************************* Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. ******************************************************************************* Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. --------------------------------- Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.
Sorry for the off topic. How do I unsubscribe form this list. Thanks -----Original Message----- From: ids-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:ids-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of H.G Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 9:22 AM To: ids@iiug.org Subject: Fragmentation in multiple dbspaces Vs single d.... [9596] IDS 9.4.FC4/HP-UX We use fragmentation strategy for almost all heavy IO tables by fragmenting in various dbspaces. That's cool. Now with IDS10, we can have multiple fragments of tables/indexes within a single dbspace. This feature is excellent from manageability point of view but I am trying to understand how divide and conqueror works in this situation to achieve better performance as dbspace with multiple fragments will be under hammer during peak IO. Surely, I am missing something. Also, any benchmark/results available with both strategies ? Thanks. --------------------------------- Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! ************************************************************************ ******* Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
Go to the IIUG web site (www.iiug.org) login to the members' pages and select FORUMS. There you can subscribe or unsubscribe from all of the forums. Art S. Kagel ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Shew <ids@iiug.org> At: 7/20 11:44:15 Sorry for the off topic. How do I unsubscribe form this list. Thanks -----Original Message----- From: ids-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:ids-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of H.G Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 9:22 AM To: ids@iiug.org Subject: Fragmentation in multiple dbspaces Vs single d.... [9596] IDS 9.4.FC4/HP-UX We use fragmentation strategy for almost all heavy IO tables by fragmenting in various dbspaces. That's cool. Now with IDS10, we can have multiple fragments of tables/indexes within a single dbspace. This feature is excellent from manageability point of view but I am trying to understand how divide and conqueror works in this situation to achieve better performance as dbspace with multiple fragments will be under hammer during peak IO. Surely, I am missing something. Also, any benchmark/results available with both strategies ? Thanks. --------------------------------- Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! ************************************************************************ ******* Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. ******************************************************************************* Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.