I have you know that my doctor is very pleased with my progress and
providing I keep taking my medication, I might be allowed out for a short
walk in the grounds, so long as I stay well away from the security fencing.
"Howard J. Rogers" <dba_at_hjrdba.com> wrote in message
news:agg694$61n$1_at_lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Certifiable, more like
>
> Said in love and with affectionate cooing tones!
> HJR
>
>
> "Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:0NMW8.31671$Hj3.95713_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > Hi Nuno,
> >
> > I completely agree, that's my point. Control for maxextents is (was) a
> > capacity management aid. I have no problem with the default behaviour
> being
> > changed to unlimited, but *only* unlimited ?
> >
> > I am certified. It hurt a little but after a few Panadols was soon over
it
> > :)
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Richard
> > "Nuno Souto" <nsouto_at_optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:dd5cc559.0207091802.541898a0_at_posting.google.com...
> > > Pete Sharman <peter.sharman_at_oracle.com> wrote in message
> > news:<agcts10d0h_at_drn.newsguy.com>...
> > >
> > > PMFJI, but this one cannot be let alone...
> > >
> > > The
> > > > number of extents in a locally managed tablespace has absolutely
none
> > (very
> > > > negligible in the worst of cases) impact on performance. As such
there
> > is no
> > > > need to set this parameter which puts an artificial limit on the
size
> of
> > an
> > > > object and hence, requires additional manual intervention.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is so very wrong! Logic: number of extents of an
> > > object has no impact on performance, therefore no need
> > > to control its maximum size.
> > >
> > > Hellloooooooooo??????
> > > Can anyone NOT spot the completely wrong logical inference?
> > >
> > >
> > > > What exactly is your client not convinced about? Do they find the
> > argument of
> > > > number of extent having no performance impact unacceptable or do
they
> > have a
> > > > need to control the object size?"
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd dare say at a minimum, that MAXEXTENTS was never a performance
> > > control parameter. It was in fact a capacity management one.
> Therefore,
> > > it shouldn't have been removed as part of a performance control
> exercise?
> > >
> > > Anyways, it might make its way back as a quota control system
> > > managed by another DBMS_**** package?
> > >
> > > BTW, another gripe: replacing the complexity of storage management
> > > parameters by the complexity of multiple DBMS_**** packages is
> > > not my idea of simplifying DBA tasks. The number of these packages
> > > in the last few versions has grown exponentially. Not good.
> > >
> > > But then again, what do I know about "DBAing"? I'm not even
> certified...
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Nuno Souto
> > > nsouto_at_optushome.com.au
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tue Jul 09 2002 - 22:00:33 CDT
