Re: LMT and Siebel/Peoplesoft?

From: Vikas Agnihotri <fornewsgroups_at_vikas.mailshell.com>
Date: 20 Jan 2002 17:30:11 -0800
Message-ID: <902027f8.0201201730.2f7eac8d@posting.google.com>

"Daniel A. Morgan" <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3C4A963E.72AB93F5_at_exesolutions.com>...
> They make sense only if you value performance and dislike fragmented
> tablespaces. Otherwise just ignore them.

Um. Maybe you didnt read my post entirely. I know that LMTs offer performance benefit and eliminate fragmented tablespaces.

But in the context of apps like Siebel and Peoplesoft, where objects range from 100K to 50-100M, what is a good extent size to use for a LMT with uniform extent allocation policy? Note that 80% of the objects are in the 100k ballpark.

If I use a extent size of, say, 256K or even 1M, I waste a lot of space since most objects are 100K. If I use a extent size of 100K, the larger objects end up having 100s of extents (which is bad, right?)

Thanks Received on Sun Jan 20 2002 - 19:30:11 CST