Re: Initials & Nexts for Tablespaces?

From: Chris Kempster <c.kempster_at_cowan.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:32:56 +0800
Message-ID: <6r88k2$p05$1@news.cowan.edu.au>

>Define extent sizes at the object level rather that using tablespace
>defaults as this gives you more control.

This is true, but you really have to watch your developers. In many cases the DBA's are given inaccurate sizing/growth information on tables, causing fragmentation and reorgs from time to time. I dont know about you but managing over 18 instances can be a real headache with contract development and not enough time in the day to really nut out sizing issues.

Personally, the performance impact with > 20 extents is not noticeable. If the extents are all over the disk, well, thats another issue. If all objects have the same size constraints defined at a Tablespace level, all objects have no problems finding another extent (as all are the same size).

The only problem is, wasted space! very small objects will inherit the large sizing values. In this case, if they are reasonably static, make the adjustments. Heavy deletes/inserts on large objects with the same sizing will benefit the most.

Chris. Received on Sun Aug 16 1998 - 22:32:56 CDT