From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Sun Apr 24 22:57:36 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air891.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j3P3vapa003596 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:57:36 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air891.startdedicated.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j3P3vZ4Z003592 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:57:36 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id C0D28186025; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:55:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24378-01; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:55:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id EC1ED186126; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:55:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <040b01c54941$f1491e50$0301a8c0@porgand> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tanel_P=F5der?= To: References: Subject: Re: LOCALLY MANAGED EXTENT PERFORMANCE Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:53:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-archive-position: 18918 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: tanel.poder.003@mail.ee Precedence: normal Reply-To: tanel.poder.003@mail.ee X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on air891.startdedicated.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS autolearn=no version=2.63 Hi, I haven't read the whole thread - but I'd just like to contribute the fact, that nowadays I save my time and create all tablespaces as autoallocate - and haven't seen any performance nor other problems so far. And I don't worry about the number or size of extents at all. Tanel. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Gorman" To: Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 8:44 PM Subject: Re: LOCALLY MANAGED EXTENT PERFORMANCE > Exactly why might a large number of extents be a bad thing? In other > words, > are you sure you are attaching the proper level of importance to the > issue? > > To help figure out if this is true, can you describe exactly what > operations > might be affected by the number of extents, and how? Queries? > Inserts/updates/deletes? Truncates? Drops? Monitoring queries? > > And, are you certain that autoLMT resolves the problem of "too many > extents"? Isn't there an upper limit on extent size even with autoLMT? > If > so, then how is this different from intelligently sized uniform LMTs? > > My apologies for the Socratic questioning, but this thread contained too > many assertions that need a little more examination... -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l