Re: LMT and Siebel/Peoplesoft?

Daniel A. Morgan wrote:
>
> 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

and you're justification for nominating 10 is ?

-- 
==============================
Connor McDonald

http://www.oracledba.co.uk

"Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue..."