- 196.9K All Categories
- 2.2K Data
- 239 Big Data Appliance
- 1.9K Data Science
- 450.4K Databases
- 221.7K General Database Discussions
- 31 Multilingual Engine
- 550 MySQL Community Space
- 478 NoSQL Database
- 7.9K Oracle Database Express Edition (XE)
- 3K ORDS, SODA & JSON in the Database
- 546 SQLcl
- 4K SQL Developer Data Modeler
- 187K SQL & PL/SQL
- 21.3K SQL Developer
- 295.9K Development
- 17 Developer Projects
- 138 Programming Languages
- 292.6K Development Tools
- 107 DevOps
- 3.1K QA/Testing
- 646K Java
- 28 Java Learning Subscription
- 37K Database Connectivity
- 155 Java Community Process
- 105 Java 25
- 22.1K Java APIs
- 138.1K Java Development Tools
- 165.3K Java EE (Java Enterprise Edition)
- 18 Java Essentials
- 160 Java 8 Questions
- 86K Java Programming
- 80 Java Puzzle Ball
- 65.1K New To Java
- 1.7K Training / Learning / Certification
- 13.8K Java HotSpot Virtual Machine
- 94.3K Java SE
- 13.8K Java Security
- 204 Java User Groups
- 442 LiveLabs
- 38 Workshops
- 10.2K Software
- 6.7K Berkeley DB Family
- 3.5K JHeadstart
- 5.7K Other Languages
- 2.3K Chinese
- 171 Deutsche Oracle Community
- 1.1K Español
- 1.9K Japanese
- 232 Portuguese
Oracle Spatial indexes with LAYER_GTYPE on global storage (ASM,...)
I am working with Oracle Sptial on 19c RDBMS.
I understand that for beter performaance, it is beter to:
2) Spatial indexes should have a different tablespace than for regular indexes.
1) Spatial indexes should have a tablespace for a specific layer, for instance point -> its own tablespace, line -> its own tablespace, etc...
So, consequently we can create a Spatial index tablespace as:
CREATE INDEX customers_sidx
INDEXTYPE IS MDSYS.SPATIAL_INDEX
PARAMETERS ('LAYER_GTYPE=POINT TABLESPACE=CUSTOMER_POINT_D');
In the past we used to have separate tablespaces according to the stored object usage (tables, indexes,...) and to allocate a given tablespace to a specific physical storage, and another one to another type of disk stotage.
Nowdays, the storage is seen as "global", this mean that we have a physicalstorage for all tablespaces in once.
So, even if we create tablespace A and tablespace B, they will be located on the same physical storage.
What about Spatial tablespaces? If I define LAYER_GTYPE for each tablespace and for each layer but these tablespaces are still in the same "global" physical storage, what is then the benefit regading performance to define the tablespaces wirth the LAYER_GTYPE parameer?
Having in mind that all the tablespaces are then on the same physical storage (ASM,...).
Thanks by advance for sharing your experience.