At 10:37 PM 5/12/2004 -0600, you wrote:

>I'm sure the answer to this is in Helen's book, but I have to wait until
>after Christmas to get my copy (just in case Santa brings it), so I'll
>post this question to the gurus on the list.
>
>On heavily loaded Oracle and DB2 databases we often specify separate
>physical media for the tables and indeces to improve performance. In
>one recent installation, we actually specified four separate physical
>media devices. One for the tables, one for the indeces, one for the
>logs, and one for the audit tables. This installation decision means
>that the I/O for our applications is very efficient and there is very
>little contention for DASD resources.
>
>Does Firebird offer this level of control? For now, a "Yes" or "No"
>answer is sufficient. By the time I need to know "how", I can have
>Helen's book.

No. Why? because it doesn't need it. "New performance features" on some
elderly architectures are very often workarounds for obsolete
implementations. You can catch a recent thread on this subject by scanning
the firebird-architect archives, under Subject "Table Partitioning".

./heLen