> It's better than *all* segments of tables in one directory, which is
> what you get if the segment number is just a component of a flat file
> name. We have to have a better answer than that for people who need
> to cope with tables bigger than a disk. Perhaps someone can
> think of a
> better answer than subdirectory-per-segment-number, but I think that
> will work well enough; and it doesn't add any complexity for file
> access.
I do not see this connection between a filesystem and a disk ?
Modern systems have the ability to join more than one disk into
one filesystem.
Also if we think about separating large tables into smaller parts
we imho want something where the optimizer has knowledge
what data it finds in what part of the table.
Andreas