RE: Enough of the "DB2" thread, let's talk about Fragmented Tables

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org [SMTP:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] > On Behalf Of Colin Dawson > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:10 AM > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: Enough of the "DB2" thread, let's talk about Fragmented > Tables > > > > With the use of SANs for storing the database how effective will the > use of > fragmented tables be? I've got a few very large tables (16+ chunks) > and was > considering splitting it into 6-8 fragments, they all have serial > columns > and one has 7 indexes (or is it indeces). The last time I did anything > real > with them was splitting a table across 4 disks, it improved the > performance > no end. I'm not convinced I will get an improvement when using a SAN [Bill Dare] I don't think it matters what type of storage device you are using, you will still get better performance if you fragment your data accross all available physical devices. By physical devices I mean the actual disk drives. In a SAN that would probably be a group of drives configured RAID5/RAID10. Bill > Regards > > Colin > > > There are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand > binary and > those that don't > > > sending to informix-list sending to informix-list

Bill Dare wrote: > I don't think it matters what type of storage device you are > using, you will still get better performance if you fragment your data > accross all available physical devices. By physical devices I mean the > actual disk drives. In a SAN that would probably be a group of drives > configured RAID5/RAID10. > > Bill I agree. That has been my experience with every commercial RDBMS. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)