Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Pros/Cons of LMT

Re: Pros/Cons of LMT

From: Daniel A. Morgan <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:28:26 -0700
Message-ID: <3B50E3AA.3B5A29C@exesolutions.com>

Chuck Hamilton wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:52:24 +0100, Connor McDonald
> <connor_mcdonald_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Terry Dykstra wrote:
> >>
> >> Locally managed tablespaces seem like the way to go. What are some of the
> >> mean reasons for using / not using them.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Terry Dykstra
> >> Canadian Forest Oil Ltd.
> >
> >Benefits are numerous - fragmentation, dictionary contention...
> >
> >drawback (imho) are pretty much none - just don't go too heavy on
> >dba_extents or dba_segments
> >
> >hth
> >connor
>
> One con is that you can't change the extent size of an object in the
> tablespace. If you're relying on a tool that warns you when you won't
> be able to allocate your next extent (I think OEM does this), you need
> to size your extents large enough to give you adaquate warning of this
> condition. If you underestimated the growth rate of the object,
> there's no easy way to increase the extent size to give you an earlier
> warning. You have to move the object to another tablespace with larger
> extents. (I'm talking uniform extent sizes here. I've never used LMTs
> without them).
>
> IMHO though, the pros greatly outweigh the only con I've come accross.

I don't see that as a con. From my experience DBAs rarely make a single tablespace of single extent size for large and small tables. More often there are three or four tablespaces sized by magnitude such as 100K, 1M, 10M, 100M so that larger tables sit in tablespaces with larger extents. So management of emptyspace is a breeze.

Daniel A. Morgan Received on Sat Jul 14 2001 - 19:28:26 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US