Re: An Oracle performances question

IMO having fragmented tables, assuming they have less then 10 extents is less worse (with the stress on *less*) than having a highly fragmented free space.
Currently, the consensus is more and more going in the direction of using a default storage clause per tablespace, initial and next extent equal, and forget about specifying a storage clause on table or index level. In this case all extents will be uniformly sized, a feature that is also available in Oracle 8i locally managed tablespaces.

Hth,

Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA

""marco pinzuti"" <mpinzuti_at_virgilio.it> wrote in message news:5BB3C27354244D1178710005B8D2584B_at_mpinzuti.virgilio.it...
> If in a STORAGE clause, for the creation of a table, I fix a NEXT quite
large, when DBMS allocates a new extent it won't probably get used altogether so that there'll be a fragmentation of Database.
> On the other hand if I set a NEXT quite small it might happen that the
 table will be split into a great amount of extents throughtout the Database.
> In which of the previous situations the Oracle performances get worse?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> ===========================================================
>
> VIRGILIO MAIL - Il tuo indirizzo E-mail gratis e per sempre
> http://mail.virgilio.it/
>
>
> VIRGILIO - La guida italiana a Internet
> http://www.virgilio.it/
>
> --
> Posted from [216.163.180.10]
> via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
>
Received on Thu Jun 15 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT