Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Indexes question

Indexes question

From: Andrey Bronfin <bronfin_at_VisualTop.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:22:37 +0200
Message-Id: <10547.111089@fatcity.com>


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0327_01BFE4E0.FDD81FB0 Content-Type: text/plain;

        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.

------=_NextPart_000_0327_01BFE4E0.FDD81FB0 Content-Type: text/html;

        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear DBAs !</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm having a very strange situation =
here , so i=20
just must have your help .</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>There is a table URLS , which has a =
column URL of=20
type varchar2(740) .</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I have a single-column index URL_IX =
defined on that=20
column .</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Now , by querying the DBA_EXTENTs , i =
see that the=20
index URL_IX occupies more space ( bytes , blocks , extents ) than the = table=20
itself .</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Is it a normal situation ?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Is it effective to define such an index =
on a=20
varchar2 (740) column and search it ?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Is there a more effective way to index =
such a=20
column and to optimize the access to it ?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks a lot in advance !</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR>Andrey=20
Bronfin<BR>VisualTop.com<BR>+972-3-5275757.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>
Received on Mon Jul 03 2000 - 04:22:37 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US