RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters

Aha! Yes, that's nailed it! Many thanks, Steve.

If I do a "SELECT TABLESPACE_NAME, MIN_EXTLEN FROM DBA_TABLESPACES", I can see that MIN_EXTLEN for the tablespace concerned is 128K. So when I create the table and specify 400K for the initial extent size, Oracle rounds this up to the next higher multiple of 128K, namely 512K.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Adams [mailto:steve.adams_at_ixora.com.au] Sent: 16 September 2004 13:01
To: Paul.Vincent_at_uce.ac.uk
Subject: RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters

Hi Paul,

I've not been following this thread closely, but from 8.0 onwards there is a MINIMUM
EXTENT size clause that can do this.
Oracle rounds all extent sizes up to a
multiple of the minimum specified during tablespace creation.=20

@   Regards,
@   Steve Adams
@   http://www.ixora.com.au/         - For DBAs
@   http://www.christianity.net.au/  - For all=20

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Paul Vincent Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2004 9:23 PM To: Oracle-L_at_Freelists. Org (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters

I'm afraid the mystery continues, then - all the db's tablespaces are dictionary-managed.

Any more ideas, anyone?

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of Mercadante, Thomas F Sent: 15 September 2004 15:00
To: Oracle-L_at_Freelists. Org (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters

I guess I left out the "locally managed" part! That is what I meant, of course! :)

Tom Mercadante
Oracle Certified Professional

-----Original Message-----
From: Niall Litchfield [mailto:niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com]=3D20 Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:58 AM To: thomas.mercadante_at_labor.state.ny.us
Cc: Paul.Vincent_at_uce.ac.uk; Oracle-L_at_Freelists. Org (E-mail) Subject: Re: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters

Comments in line
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:57:31 -0400, Mercadante, Thomas F <thomas.mercadante_at_labor.state.ny.us> wrote:
> Paul,

>=3D20
> Check the storage params on the tablespace. Could be that the initial

> extent for the tbs is 512k. I think this would trump the table=3D20
> storage param.

If only that were the case!=3D20

object storage takes precedence over the tablespace clause (which if you think about it just defines a default value for new objects) for traditional
tablespaces.

There is a rather important change though for locally managed tablespaces
where the object clauses are [1] ignored. I'd hazard a guess then that Paul
has a locally managed tablespace with uniform extent management and a uniform size of 512k.

--=3D20
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com

[1] Strictly they are not *ignored* at creation since the requested initial
size for the object *determines* how many extents are initially allocated.
The extents follow the tablespace policy though. So in Paul's case I would
expect a new object with initial and next of 800k to get two extents on creation each of 512k - requested more than 512k therefore need 2 extents.

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l


--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l