Re: Indexes question

Thanks , Gaurav !
I'm aware of this , but i've just created both the index & the table . NO delete has been performed yet !

I have a very strong feeling that something is wrong with indexing a 740 bytes long string column , but i don't know what exctly is wrong and how to fix it .
Thanks !

• Original Message ----- From: "Gaurav Verma" <gaurav_verma22_at_YAHOO.COM> To: <ORACLE-L_at_lists.sunysb.edu> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 10:32 AM Subject: Re: Indexes question

> Hi Andrey,
>
> this situation as u put it (index occupying more
> space
> than the table) can occur if the table is used
> frequently for deletion operations as u see, the
> blocks having the deleted rows are cleaned up as free
> rather they are just marked as deleted and are still
> a part of the index. to reduce the index size
> u could try re-creating the index & the size
> would reduce if the above condition holds true.
>
> cheers,
>
> --- Andrey B <bronfin_at_VISUALTOP.COM> wrote:
> > Dear DBAs !
> > I'm having a very strange situation here , so i just
> > must have your help ..
> >
> > There is a table URLS , which has a column URL of
> > type varchar2(740) .
> > I have a single-column index URL_IX defined on that
> > column .
> > Now , by querying the DBA_EXTENTs , i see that the
> > index URL_IX occupies more space ( bytes , blocks ,
> > extents ) than the table itself .
> > Is it a normal situation ?
> > Is it effective to define such an index on a
> > varchar2 (740) column and search it ?
> > Is there a more effective way to index such a column
> > and to optimize the access to it ?
> >
> > Thanks a lot in advance !
> >
> > Andrey Bronfin
> > VisualTop.com
> > +972-3-5275757.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> Gaurav
>
> Do not go where the path leads but go where no one and gone before and
leave a trail behind.....
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
Received on Mon Jul 03 2000 - 05:01:41 CDT