Re: Number of extents related with performance?

On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 17:21:51 -0800, Jimmy <anonymous_at_anonymous.com> wrote:

> I am using block size 8K. In fact, the whole story is, I am DBA, and
>some developers complain about the performance of the database. I found
>that most of the tables they were using is 32K. Later, I truncated some
>tables, change the size of NEXT parameters of some large tables to a
>higer values, and then load the data again to these tables. After the
>above action, developers said the performance is improved. In fact, some
>papers mentioned that the performance is not related with the extent
>sizes (provided that no. of extents below 1000).
>

And that should hold true in your case. You mentioned some large tables were defraged. I assume they would be much larger than 32K? Because with 32K tables and a 8K block size, it shouldn't matter at all what you put in INITIAL or NEXT, quite frankly.

I wonder if the developers were only complaining about a point in time situation? It happens. Might be worth doing a few tests yourself with the actual data and some of the SQL involved and see if it really does make a diff?

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_bigpond.net.au.nospam
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html Received on Mon Jan 01 2001 - 06:47:48 CST