Thanks,

I'll have to read the thread.

On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:51, Helen Borrie wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>