Re: More questions on tablespaces

Dave,

We are running EE7.3.3 on AIX. What we observe that is if the listener processes is allocated to a say SQL*Report connection. The cpu consumption will go up dramatically... (i.e jump from 0.X to 20.X), is this the problem of the running Report...

"Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:f2lufso2pbparncdf7ipnadjf91eq6nlga_at_4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:25:29 GMT, argosy22_at_my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >HI everyone,
> >
> >Some more questions on tablespaces.
> >
> >I'm reverse engineering a database on our production
> >server, for use on a new staging server. I queried
> >the data dictionary and found:
> >
> >
> > 1 Select ts.TABLESPACE_NAME ,
> > 2 df.file_name ,
> > 3 ts.INITIAL_EXTENT ,
> > 4 ts.NEXT_EXTENT ,
> > 5 ts.MIN_EXTENTS ,
> > 6 ts.MAX_EXTENTS ,
> > 7 ts.PCT_INCREASE ,
> > 8 vdf.BYTES,
> > 9 vdf.CREATE_BYTES
> > 10 from dba_tablespaces ts,
> > 11 dba_data_files df,
> > 12 v$datafile vdf
> > 13 where ts.TABLESPACE_NAME = df.TABLESPACE_NAME
> > 14 and vdf.name = df.FILE_NAME
> > 15* order by 1, 2
> >
> >
> >TABLESPACE_NAME
> >------------------------------
> >FILE_NAME
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >--------
> >INITIAL_EXTENT NEXT_EXTENT MIN_EXTENTS MAX_EXTENTS PCT_INCREASE
> >BYTES
> >-------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
> >----------
> >CREATE_BYTES
> >------------
> >INDEX_TBS
> >/index/???.dbf
> > 16384 16384 1 121 10
> >209715200
> > 209715200
> >
> >RBS
> >/rollback/???.dbf
> > 26214400 1048576 1 505 0
> >209715200
> > 209715200
> >
> >
> >ROLLBACK_TBS
> >/rollback/???.dbf
> > 16384 16384 1 121 10
> >209715200
> > 209715200
> >
> >...
> >
> >TEMP
> >/index/???.dbf
> > 10485760 1048576 1 505 0
> >209715200
> > 209715200
> >
> >...
> >
> >
> >What strikes me as odd is for some tablespaces (ROLLBACK_TBS, and
> >INDEX_TBS):
> >- some extents are only 16K (1024*16=16384)
> > (Yet I think the default is 160K)
> >- the max extents are only 121
> >(indicating max 1982464 bytes that will be used, or 1.89M)
> >- but the file is given a whole 200M for storage
> >
> >
> >Is only 1.89M being used in some of these tables of 200M?
> >Or, is 16384, not in fact 16K, but something else?
> >
> >Or, am I missing something here?
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Argosy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
> No,
> you seem to confuse the storage clause and the default storage clause
> which is defined on tablespace level.
> If I don't give an object an explicit storage, the default storage
> clause is used. In that case the default storage clause is copied to
> the storage clause of the object and can always be altered afterwards.
> So, if you don't specify and never change anything, yes: objects
> created without a storage clause in the tablespaces you mention will
> reach a maximum on 1.89M. You need to look at dba_segments and
> dba_extents to see what is actually used, the calculation you make is
> most likely incorrect.
>
> Hth,
>
> Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
>
Received on Fri Apr 21 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT