nope. <sigh> not yet
I'll go check metalink now.
thx.
Barb
On 6/6/05, Jared Still <jkstill_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, that's why I included the IIRC on the INITIAL size; too lazy
> to go look it up. ;)
>=20
> Have you checked on MetaLink for possible bugs in a version=20
> you are using?
>=20
> 9204 is no longer the 'latest and greatest'.
>=20
> Jared
>=20
>=20
> On 6/6/05, Barbara Baker <barb.baker_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, Jared! I missed that ref in the archives. It looks like
> > exactly what's happening to me.
> >=20
> > 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=20
> > column "LMT's take the initial,next, minextents, pctincrease to figure
> > out how much to initially allocate and allocate that much. . . . .
> > if you start empty and grow -- it'll adjust. If you say "give me=20
> > big", it'll start big"
> >=20
> > 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=20
> > large initial size, then Oracle can skip the smaller size extents and
> > leap straight in to 1mb, or even 1m extents."
> >
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Mon Jun 06 2005 - 13:47:11 CDT
