Home » RDBMS Server » Server Administration » Confusion with initial extent in Uniform LMT
Confusion with initial extent in Uniform LMT [message #248802] Mon, 02 July 2007 01:31 Go to next message
sureshkay
Messages: 21
Registered: June 2007
Junior Member
As per Oracle Documentation
Reference :
http://download-uk.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14200/clauses009.htm
[In locally managed tablespaces, Oracle uses the value of INITIAL in conjunction with the size of extents specified for the tablespace to determine the first extent of the object.
For example, in a uniform locally managed tablespace with 5M extents, if you specify an INITIAL value of 1M, then Oracle creates five 1M extents.]
To check this statement I exercised it in practice

I created a Locally managed Tablespace with uniform size 5M.

create tablespace ts_test01
datafile 'e:\df_test01.dbf' size 40M
extent management local uniform size 5M

Then I created a table in that tablespace with initial extent 1M as said in example.

Create table T_TEST01 (I number)
Storage (initial 1M);

Now when I query the dba_extents I find Only 1 Extent with ID 0 having 5M Size.

select segment_name, tablespace_name, extent_id, bytes, blocks from user_extents

SEG_NAM TABSPA_NAME EXT_ID BYTES BLOCKS
---------- --------------------- ---------- -----
T_TEST01 TS_TEST01 0 5242880 640

But as per Oracle documentation there should be 5 Extents with 1M size.

So is there any thing wrong in my interpretation ???

Also when I create tablespace with uniform size 1M

create tablespace ts_test02
datafile 'e:\df_test02.dbf' size 40M
extent management local uniform size 1M

and Then create a table of Initial size 5M

Create table T_TEST01 (I number)
Storage (initial 5M);

Now when I query the dba_extents I find 5 Extents with ID 0,1,2,3,4 having each 1M Size.

select segment_name, tablespace_name, extent_id, bytes, blocks from user_extents

SEG_NAM TABSPA_NAME EXT_ID BYTES BLOCKS
-------------- --------------------- ----------
T_TEST01 TS_TEST02 0 1048576 128
T_TEST01 TS_TEST02 1 1048576 128
T_TEST01 TS_TEST02 2 1048576 128
T_TEST01 TS_TEST02 3 1048576 128
T_TEST01 TS_TEST02 4 1048576 128

[Updated on: Mon, 02 July 2007 02:11]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Confusion with initial extent in Uniform LMT [message #248810 is a reply to message #248802] Mon, 02 July 2007 01:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michel Cadot
Messages: 64139
Registered: March 2007
Location: Nanterre, France, http://...
Senior Member
Account Moderator
It is a bug documentation.
Swap 5 and 1: 1M extent and initial of 5M.

Regards
Michel
Re: Confusion with initial extent in Uniform LMT [message #248813 is a reply to message #248810] Mon, 02 July 2007 02:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sureshkay
Messages: 21
Registered: June 2007
Junior Member
Thanx Michel,

But Are u sure, or is there anything wrong with my interpretation. I will wait for any more comments before i am sure.
The Storage Clause for Tables with LMT is having very much confusion.

Effect of INITIAL, NEXT, MINEXTENTS, MAXEXTENTS,PCTINCREASE, MINIMUM EXTENT on Allocation of Extents For

UNIFORM LMT:
AUTOALLOCATE LMT:
DMT:

Can anyone put it in simple words.

Thanx in Advance with many many interests
Re: Confusion with initial extent in Uniform LMT [message #248817 is a reply to message #248813] Mon, 02 July 2007 03:04 Go to previous message
Michel Cadot
Messages: 64139
Registered: March 2007
Location: Nanterre, France, http://...
Senior Member
Account Moderator
I am sure.

Regards
Michel
Previous Topic: ASM - Raw devices owner's matter
Next Topic: Enable Archive log mode
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Dec 08 08:36:19 CST 2016

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.08843 seconds