Re: Storage Parameters defined on tablespaces

Reply sent to author

IMHO, it is far better to define a default storage clause for a tablespace and not specify storage clauses in the CREATE INDEX and CREATE TABLE statements. The only disadvantage that I can see is that excessive amounts of disk space will be allocated to small tables and indexes. Given the cost of disk storage this is not significant when weighed against the advantages of simplification, standardization, eliminating the need to ever coalesce a tablespace, and -- most importantly -- eliminating the need to ever running exports and imports in order to reorganize tablespaces. (export and import are fine -- until you get involved in a production application with a lot of foreign keys!)

regards
Jerry Gitomer

sh wrote in message <37A61AB4.E5A077FC_at_yahoo.com>...
>A quick question in regards to tablesapce storage parameters.
>Is it not "best practice" to define storage parameters at the
tablespace
>level, particularly when a developer does not do so at the table
level?
>We have a new database going into production soon, and I am
identifying
>the storage parameters based upon table sizes seen on the
development
>machine.
>
>I know that some smaller tables could take up the same storage
parameter
>of a larger table because of this, but it seems better than
leaving the
>storage parms at
>the default.
>
>thanks.
>
Received on Tue Aug 03 1999 - 09:58:11 CDT