Re: Locally Managed Tablespaces - any cons???

On Sat, 18 Aug 2001 08:55:38 +1000, "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr_at_www.com> wrote:

>
>"Frank Hubeny" <fhubeny_at_ntsource.com> wrote in message
>news:3B7CADF3.432D3FF6_at_ntsource.com...
>> I tend to avoid locally managed tablespaces for the following reasons:
>>
>> (1) A bug using the locally managed tablespaces and read only tablespaces
>in
>> 8i almost prohibits using these two features together at least in 8.1.6
>(see
>> Note 131886.1 on MetaLink for more info).
>>
>> (2) Once the storage parameters of the locally managed tablespace are set,
>> they cannot be changed without rebuilding the tablespace. Setting the
>> default storage parameters of a dictionary managed tablespace is far more
>> flexible.
>
>Why on earth would you ever *want* to change a tablespace's default storage
>parameters? Doing so affects nothing already created within the tablespace
>(they've already picked up the old default as their own, operative, storage
>clause).
>
>LMT's inability to do something that has no point in any event is hardly a
>drawback.
>
>But, assuming you had a desperate need to re-jig the thing, 8i's 'move
>tablespace' makes creating a new tablespace with the "correct" size and then
>porting all segments into it a doddle.
>
>The business about DBA_SEGMENTS running slowly is true.
>
>Regards
>HJR
>
>
>>
>> (3) Performance of queries against dba_segments appear, at least to me, to
>> be far slower than similar queries against dictionary managed tablespaces.
>>
>> Locally managed tablespaces may have a performance benefit, as others have
>> mentioned, if there are many concurrent changes to the extents in the
>> tablespace. I would be curious to know how volatile a tablespace has to
>be
>> to justify making it locally managed rather than dictionary managed.
>>
>> However, since there are costs, in at least flexibility, with using
>locally
>> managed tablespaces, using them indiscriminately does not appear to be
>> prudent.
>>
>> Frank Hubeny
>>
>>

The real benefit of LMT is not performance-related, IMHO. It is administrative.

LMT's DON't use default storage parameters, as you do not specify efault values for initial, next and pctincrease for LMT. Segments created in aLMT do not need to have initial, next and pctincrease specified. The 2 latter will be ignored, AFAIK.

And that is the great thing about LMT : They effectively eliminates 99% of the considerations with INITIAL and NEXT when creating segments in them => saving time, money and trouble. And, even better, they bury the controversial PCTINCREASE parameter once and for all.

>>
>>
>> Ron Gardiner wrote:
>>
>> > New for 8i (I believe) is locally managed tablespaces...
>> >
>> > From what I've read, sounds like there is no reason NOT to use them. Can
>> > they be used for all types of TS?... rollback segs, temporary, how about
>> > system itself?
>> >
>> > Any feedback would be appreciated!
>>
>
>

Regards,
Kenneth Koenraadt
Systems Consultant
Oracle DBA
plovmand@<no-spam>hotmail.com Received on Sat Aug 18 2001 - 03:35:11 CDT