Subject | Re: Bug with external table > 2 GB |
---|---|
Author | Alexander V.Nevsky |
Post date | 2002-11-04T17:05:42Z |
--- In ib-support@y..., Helen Borrie <helebor@t...> wrote:
multy-file databases are faster then single-file instance of the same
database. Since 64bit Linux CS does'nt exists, I can't neither confirm
this nor disprove on really large database containing many objects. So
I stay on belief that it is superstition caused by general effect of
backup/restore and performance should be the same. Perhaps if files
are placed on different disks some RAID-emulation effect...
Best regards, Alexander V.Nevsky.
> At 01:36 PM 04-11-02 +0000, you wrote:database
>
> >What about performance. Isn't just one database file faster than
> >two, three or more.?
>
> There's no reason why it should be. From the point of view of the
> engine, it is all just "blocks of storage space", which it managesitself.
>Helen, I'm not Ann, but I've been reported many times that
> Thoughts, Ann?
multy-file databases are faster then single-file instance of the same
database. Since 64bit Linux CS does'nt exists, I can't neither confirm
this nor disprove on really large database containing many objects. So
I stay on belief that it is superstition caused by general effect of
backup/restore and performance should be the same. Perhaps if files
are placed on different disks some RAID-emulation effect...
Best regards, Alexander V.Nevsky.