The tables in the schema are intended to be used read only and is only updated once each three month.

My question refers to performance maintenance (backup/restore, export/import)

What about the temporary tablespace, is it better to use a different one in this case?

2 Answers 2


If you are planning to drop schemas, having a separate tablespace which can also be dropped will reduce fragmentation in whatever tablespace you would otherwise use (unless you are using uniform extents, but that is not the default).

RMAN recovery options are different as you would be able to do TSPITR on each individual schema.

Fragmentation is not an issue for temp tablespaces because "All extents of temporary tablespaces are of uniform size". Obviously there are no backup/restore, export/import implications for temp. By giving each user their own temp tablespace you'd be imposing a kind of resource limit on them, but there are less wasteful ways of doing that if it is your aim.


An additional benefit of using separate tablespace for each schema is that these tablespaces can be placed on different disk groups to meet differing performance, cost, and recovery requirements. For example, one may need to be on flash drives, another on large slow disks, and another on a dedicated RAID 61.

  • 1
    This was only meant to supplement the excellent answer given by JackPDouglas. (You should accept his.) May 9, 2011 at 14:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.