Re: Local Index Size
From: Peter Hitchman <pjhoraclel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:12:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPMSPxM1nkEUrHGcSy3rZdvk=-uFu3Zqp-RkiZG0Dw3HxRkTKQ_at_mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
It is not unheard of for an index to be larger than a table or a table partition, if it includes most of the table columns, because it also has to store a rowed with each index entry. Do you have the original SQL used to create the indexes as well as the tables?
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:12:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPMSPxM1nkEUrHGcSy3rZdvk=-uFu3Zqp-RkiZG0Dw3HxRkTKQ_at_mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
It is not unheard of for an index to be larger than a table or a table partition, if it includes most of the table columns, because it also has to store a rowed with each index entry. Do you have the original SQL used to create the indexes as well as the tables?
Regards
Pete
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jonathan Lewis
<jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> It seems extremely unlikely (though not totally impossible) that Oracle
> should have done something so bizarre.
>
> Which version of Oracle
> What does the DDL for the tablespace the index partitions are in look like
> ?
> What are the default settings (dba_part_indexes) for the index ?
> What does a call to dbms_metadata.get_ddl tell you about the index
> definition ?
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Lewis
> http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com/all_postings
>
> Author: Oracle Core (Apress 2011)
> http://www.apress.com/9781430239543
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue Jul 10 2012 - 14:12:45 CDT