There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
damorgan <dan.morgan_at_ci.seattle.wa.us> wrote in message
news:3C7D2ADE.5246BE54_at_ci.seattle.wa.us...
> Tablespaces don't cost more. I can not imaging using less than three
> tablespaces for data and three for indexes.
>
> Then size them, after examining your segments, to something like this:
>
> 128K, 5M, 25M
>
> so that you have small for lookups, medium where appropriate, and large
> for the largest: Usually I use more depending on my analysis and getting
> the best possible usage of my disk space.
>
> Daniel Morgan
>
>
>
> Christian Svensson wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > We are about to swith out temporary tablespace from Dictionary Managed
> > Tablespace (DMT) to Locally Managed Tablespace (LMT) when we will
> > upgrade our database (OLTP) from 8.1.6.0 -> 8.1.7.1
> >
> > How are we going to decide the "best suitable" uniform size for the
> > LMT ?
> >
> > I have looked everywhere in both this newsgroup and at metalink, but
> > the only thing I find is that it should be:
> >
> > UNIFORM SIZE = SORT_AREA_SIZE * n
> >
> > Now we have a sort_area_size of 65536 but how many "n" should we have
> > ? I have seen many examples of a uniform size of 10M and 50M(!) but I
> > have not seen any directions.
> >
> > In v$system_event there are only 1 total_waits if that helps.
> >
> > Thanks for any comments on this.
> >
> > /Christian
>
Received on Wed Feb 27 2002 - 15:27:42 CST
