Re: Indexed Tablespace Fragmentation

From: Jonathan Lewis <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:04:48 +0100
Message-ID: <1020168287.14110.0.nnrp-13.9e984b29@news.demon.co.uk>

Yes.

But almost entirely for management reasons. If a segment in an LMT has more than a few dozen segments - and is still growing - it should be in the 'next size up' tablespace.

--
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk

Author of:
Practical Oracle 8i: Building Efficient Databases

Next Seminar - Australia - July/August
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html

Host to The Co-Operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html



Nuno Souto wrote in message
<3cce7a59$0$15477$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...


>In article <1020117147.18578.0.nnrp-12.9e984b29_at_news.demon.co.uk>, you

>said (and I quote):

>>

>> There's a difference between

>>     extents per segment

>> and

>>     extents per tablespace

>

>yup.

>

>>

>> One reason I like to keep extents per segment

>> quite low (ideally a few dozen, worst case a

>> couple of hundred) is to ensure that the

>> tablespace as a whole doesn't end up

>> with huge number of extents.

>

>Is that for lmt AND dmt?

>

>

>--

>Cheers

>Nuno Souto

>nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam

Received on Tue Apr 30 2002 - 07:04:48 CDT