Re: LMT with autoallocate

In article <3BEEA607.E4CC5761_at_ecis.com>, Mark says...
>
>I have seen several times the recommendation to only use uniform extents with
>LMT
>instead of "autoallocate", but no explanation as to why?
>
>We have been using LMT with autoallocate for a long time (admittedly not a huge
>DB)
>with no problems...
>

I just like the uniform sizes - I group objects by their size, hence I can set up an extent size that makes sense. I'll put "big things" in "big tablespaces", "small things" in small tablespaces.

The autoallocate sort of says "I don't know or care how big the objects will be, so, start them off small and make the extents get bigger and bigger as time goes on".

Since I generally know how big things will be or how they are to grow over time, I just put them in the right bucket by size.

>Connor McDonald wrote:
>
>> Thomas Kyte wrote:
>> >
>> [...]
>> > >
>> > >Could someone who has used LMT (locally managed tablespaces) with
>> > >either autoallocate or uniform extents comment on their alleged
>> > >performance benefits, administrative issues, etc?
>> > >
>> [...]
>> >
>>> locally managed tablespaces are (with the glaring exception of system) the
>>ONLY
>> > type of tablespace I use. I only use UNIFORM, never autoallocate.
>> >
>
>[...]
>

--
Thomas Kyte (tkyte@us.oracle.com)             http://asktom.oracle.com/ 
Expert one on one Oracle, programming techniques and solutions for Oracle.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1861004826/  
Opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Oracle Corp