Re: unbalanced indexes -- common wisdom?

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bdf69bdf.0205221358.4b35f7b6_at_posting.google.com...
> Sybrand Bakker <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:<rupneuc1hcf9rviejkd6kmhtdm4vbstrav_at_4ax.com>...
> > On 22 May 2002 11:09:35 -0700, mikharakiri_at_yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >There are so many useless options for creating an index, and the most
> > >important one -- "balanced" -- seems to be missing. Would the standard
> > >B-Tree implemented in any time in the future?
> >
> > Just FYI: ordinary Oracle indexes *are* balanced.
>
> I'm sorry, I was distracted by the title:
> http://gethelp.devx.com/techtips/oracle_pro/10min/10min0601/10min0601.asp
>
> I really meant fragmented. I know, this ugly index maintenance is
> unneccessary, as it doesn't improve performance -- but there is still
> a waisted storage. Since oracle created every possible option to
> manage storage, how did they forget about this one?

ALTER INDEX <index_name> COALESCE
to free up space

Please make sure you read the manual before ranting.

Needless to say the link you provide doesn't work.

Regards

--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

to reply remove '-verwijderdit' from my e-mail address