RE: ALTER TABLE MOVE command causes table to grow

From: Miller, Jay <JayMiller_at_TDWaterhouse.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 13:38:41 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.004C9282.20020905133841@fatcity.com>

Yes, it's from DBA_SEGMENTS. And there was no DML against the table during the ALTER TABLE MOVE command which is when it grew.

Re the 10% PCT_FREE there's minimal update activity. It has constant low level insert activity during the month, then a batch delete at the end of the month followed by a batch insert at the beginning of the month. But even if that wasn't the case how would a low PCT_FREE cause it to grow during the MOVE command? I'm not certain I understand what you're aiming at there.

Jay

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:18 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L

just to be certain we are on the same page, you mention uniform sizing which is on
the tablespace level, so I want to make sure the PCT_INCREASE you provided was pulled from dba_segments. if so then i'd say a bit more info would need to have some light shed on it persay was there much DML put against this table last week. a PCT_FREE of 10% wouldn't be such a good idea for a table with varying length column data.

-----Original Message-----
<mailto:JayMiller_at_TDWaterhouse.com> ]
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:43 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L

pct increase is 0 (uniform sizing)

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:00 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L

you didn't mention the PCT_INCREASE of this segment.

-----Original Message-----
< mailto:JayMiller_at_tdwaterhouse.com <mailto:JayMiller_at_tdwaterhouse.com> > ] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:09 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L

Had an annoying surprise last week. A table had grown unexpectedly large and I scheduled a time over the weekend to move it to its own tablespace from my "medium" tablespace.

The table ended up growing 50%. I had anticipated it might grow somewhat given the PCTFREE of 10% but freeing up that space in the blocks should, at most, have caused it to grow by 10% (assuming that 10% was completely full).

Does anyone have ideas as to why it would have grown by so much? Indexes are in a different tablespace and the only other change was from an extent size of 4 meg to one of 25 meg. Both are dictionary managed tablespaces.

Oracle 8.1.7.2
Solaris 2.6

Thanks,
Jay Miller

--

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com <http://www.orafaq.com>
< http://www.orafaq.com <http://www.orafaq.com> >
--

Author: Miller, Jay
INET: JayMiller_at_TDWaterhouse.com

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051 
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists 
--------------------------------------------------------------------

To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).

--

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com <http://www.orafaq.com>
--

Author: Miller, Jay
INET: JayMiller_at_TDWaterhouse.com

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051 
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists 
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--

Author: Miller, Jay
INET: JayMiller_at_TDWaterhouse.com

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------