Re: Pad temp extents a few bytes larger than sort_area_size?

Hi,

I like to ask if the use of sort_area_size as a factor in the uniform extent is still relevant with direct sort now being used ?

Ghee

Howard J. Rogers wrote in message ...
>No. That advice applies to temporary tablespaces which happen to be
>dictionary managed, because the initial extent has to allow for the segment
>header block.
>
>But the poster has indicated that he is using 8i temporary tablespaces in
>locally managed tablespaces, and in such tablespaces, the advice from
Oracle
>is that the uniform size parameter should *equal* the sort_area_size or a
>multiple thereof, *without* the addition of the extra block. Since extent
>allocations are handled differently in locally managed tablespaces, there
is
>*no* need for the extra space required in dictionary managed versions of
>temporary tablespace.
>
>So, to answer the original poster, no... stick to the exact setting of
>sort_area_size (or an integer multiple thereof), and don't pad it with
extra
>bytes at all. You will pay a performance penalty if you do.
>
>Regards
>HJR
>--
Received on Tue Mar 26 2002 - 05:02:38 CST