Re: Strange storage behaviour when using parallel

This proves a very important point. My maths sucks (although if I spent slightly more than the fraction of a second looking at the numbers it might have helped).

Which means the pctincrease for the tablespace is suss.

Thanks for the correction.

Richard
"Richard Spee" <rhpspee_at_wxs.nl> wrote in message news:ae8g3u$ijv$1_at_reader07.wxs.nl...
> PCT_INCREASE is 25%.
> Every time an extent is created the value of NEXT_EXTENT is increased by
25%
> The first extent = 209715200
> The second extent = 209715200*1.25=262144000
> The third extent = 262144000*1.25=327680000
> And so on
>
> "Joe Bayer" <u705413818_at_spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net> wrote in message
> news:l.1023899846.1614074707@[64.94.198.252]...
> > I created an index like this
> >
> > create index sensor_data_id_pk
> > on sensor_data_200one (sensor_data_id)
> > local
> > storage (initial 200m next 200m)
> > tablespace indx
> > nologging
> > parallel (degree 2)
> >
> > But when I query the dictionary, I got the following results:
> > PARTITION_NAME INITIAL_EXTENT NEXT_EXTENT EXTENTS
> > ------------------------------ -------------- ----------- ----------
> > FEB_2001 209715200 327680000 3
> > MAR_2001 209715200 327680000 3
> > APR_2001 209715200 327680000 3
> > MAY_2001 209715200 262144000 2
> > JUN_2001 209715200 327680000 3
> > JUL_2001 209715200 327680000 3
> > AUG_2001 209715200 327680000 3
> > SEP_2001 209715200 327680000 3
> > OCT_2001 209715200 409600000 4
> > NOV_2001 209715200 209715200 1
> > JAN_2001 209715200 409600000 4
> >
> > The next_extent is change from partition to partition, could somebody
> > tell me why?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent by joebayerii from hotmail within area com
> > This is a spam protected message. Please answer with reference header.
> > Posted via http://www.usenet-replayer.com/cgi/content/new
>
>
Received on Thu Jun 13 2002 - 03:29:27 CDT