Re: LMT Autoallocate initial, tot # of extents

Thanks, Jared! I missed that ref in the archives. It looks like exactly what's happening to me.

However, in my research, I saw references that lead me to believe there might be some way to change the behavior. From a Tom Kyte column "LMT's take the initial,next, minextents, pctincrease to figure out how much to initially allocate and allocate that much. . . . . =20 if you start empty and grow -- it'll adjust. If you say "give me big", it'll start big"

and this one from Jonathan Lewis: "normal behaviour pattern is 16 x 64K extents before switching to 1mb extents, but if you're importing large objects with a large 'initial' size, or if your DDL requests a large initial size, then Oracle can skip the smaller size extents and leap straight in to 1mb, or even 1m extents."

In either case, I can't see how to "make it big"

Thx.

Barb

On 6/6/05, Jared Still <jkstill_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Barbara,
>=20
> This is to be expected.
>=20
> Your experience here bears out what is found at=20
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/06-2004/msg01925.html
> and a few other places.
>=20
> Extent size will start out as 1m, progress to 8m and then 64m.
>=20
> Setting 'INITIAL' will not affect the size of the extents IIRC, just
> the number of them.
>=20
> Since you alread know the size of the table, perhaps a uniform
> extent size tablespace would be more practical.
>=20
> Jared
>=20
>=20
> On 6/6/05, Barbara Baker <barb.baker_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oracle 9.2.0.4 Solaris 9 Blocksize 8192
> >=20
> > I'm attempting to move several
> > tables from DMT to autoallocate LMT for a database migrated from
> > 8.1.7.4 to 9.2.0.4. (Agonized over autoallocate vs. uniform size.=3D20
> > Perhaps I made the wrong choice.) Anyhow . . .
> >=20
> > ...
> > Switches to 8192k after 64 extents=20
> >=20
> Jared Still
> Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
>=20
>

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