should initial = next?

Hi, I've read recently of the importance setting the initial extent size and all next extent sizes to the same value, and that the overhead of for eg 1000 extents is insignificant compared to the gains [Dave Ensor - BMC Software]
(I hope I'm reading this right Dave!)

Anyway, as an example, if I've got a table of 900Mb, currently we are setting:
initial extent to 900Mb
next entent of 256K
max extents 400

From reading this article, is it better to have a setting something like initial extent to 1098 K
next entent of 1098 K
max extents 1000
(ie 1098*1024 * 600 extents = 900Mb, leaving 200 extents free (=200*1098
= 219Mb for growth))

Is it generally accepted out there that this is a better approach or is this splitting hairs (or did I totally misunderstand this) ? Received on Mon Feb 05 2001 - 15:53:19 CST