Re: Correct uniform size for temporary LMT ?

If you can help him out ... then do so. I suspect quotations alone will not be enough.

Daniel Morgan

Keith Boulton wrote:

> 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 - 16:50:34 CST