2G would be 2048M or 2147483648 bytes.
In message <bafba412.0207151156.180716f_at_posting.google.com>, Steve S
<stevens_at_coloradocustomware.com> writes
>Pardon me for my ignorance, but I dont understand the diff between 2
>GB and 2000 M. I'm gueesing that it has to do with the the number of
>real bytes between the two numbers? So if so, how does the boundary
>issue create problems?
>
>"Paul Brewer" <paul_at_paul.brewers.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:<3d308908_2_at_mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>...
>> "Steve S" <stevens_at_coloradocustomware.com> wrote in message
>> news:bafba412.0207130444.407a0c4f_at_posting.google.com...
>> > Richard,
>> > So you would recommend breaking up a large tablespace into many
>> > smaller (2 GB)datafiles for manageability. Is there a performance hit
>> > in spanning a tablespace across many datafiles over having one big
>> > file?
>> >
>> > THanks for your help,
>> > Steve
>> >
>> PMFJI.
>>
>> I agree with Richard, and moreover I tend towards the conservative. I like
>> 2000M datafiles, rather than 2GB, as I'm slightly nervous of files which end
>> exactly on a boundary.
>>
>> Just my 2c, and HTH,
>> Paul
--
Adrian Carlson-Hedges
Received on Tue Jul 16 2002 - 02:15:06 CDT
