In article <9smaja02rfi_at_drn.newsguy.com>, "Thomas Kyte"
<tkyte_at_us.oracle.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
I am paid to be paranoid and I do not believe the functional
specifications because things sometimes turn out to be an order of
magnitude larger then planned. I do like LMT with autoallocate.
On the other hand, I'm just a production DBA, other people can have
different views.
--
Mladen Gogala
We are the DBAs. Resistance is futile. You will be denormalized.
Received on Sun Nov 11 2001 - 22:04:53 CST
