Re: LMT and Siebel/Peoplesoft?

Not in my book. I like to keep the number of extents at 10 or less. Just put/move the tables into an appropriately sized tablespace.

Daniel Morgan

Ganesh Raja wrote:

> fornewsgroups_at_vikas.mailshell.com (Vikas Agnihotri) wrote in message news:<902027f8.0201201730.2f7eac8d_at_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?)
>
> No... That is a Myth... Worry only when u'r extents go beyond 1000's
> ... Then you may need to partition the table and all ...
>
> But 100s of Extents is okay ....
>
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Regards,
> Ganesh R
Received on Mon Jan 21 2002 - 02:48:29 CST