Re: autoextend size vs. extent size in LMT

In article <3d075d9a.96364364_at_ausnews.austin.ibm.com>, you said (and I quote):
>
> If the file is full when another table extent is needed, will he get the
> necessary 32k (as specified for the TABLESPACE) in one operation, or will go by
> the 4k specified for the FILE and repeat as necessary until he has enough space
> to satisfy the 32k?

I suspect it's gonna be 4K as many as needed to get to the required space.

>
> Whatever the answer, is there a way to demonstrate and verify?

Try it?

> And what other suggestions would you have if one were committed to using
> AUTOEXTEND in a production environment?

Defenitely and absolutely not use 4K as NEXT. Most likely 50M or 100M, but no-way-jose 4K.

And use it as a last resort safety measure. Ie, implement a MAXSIZE, not just unlimited. And make sure you keep an eye on things so that you don't get too many "chunks" added. It's bad for NTFS. You know that, don't you?

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam