Re: Oracle dbf problem

Hi Norman,

Actually, I hid it very well :)

Thanks heaps for raising all this because I wasn't at all clear in my initial posting (I only mentioned the keep option after your post). I was taking a wild guess at the start as to the reason for the lack of free space in the tablespace and mentioned the final deallocate point as an after thought.

Enjoying the journey and getting there safely is what counts I always say.

Regards

Richard

PS. Go the Aussies at the Commonwealth Games at my old home town of Manchester !!

"Norman Dunbar" <Norman.Dunbar_at_lfs.co.uk> wrote in message news:E2F6A70FE45242488C865C3BC1245DA702699409_at_lnewton.leeds.lfs.co.uk...
> Hi Richard,
>
> >> Hee Hee, I love crossed wires, especially when they're live !!
> Bzzzt bzzzt !
>
> >> In your example, you didn't specify the keep option.
> True, but up until about 5 minutes ago, I hadn't realised such a beast
> existed. Mea Culpa.
>
> >> Therefore by default,
> >> it only deallocates the blocks above initial/minextents. You must
> specify
> >> the keep option to deallocate data below the initial/minextents
> value.
> Sound of penny dropping. (Well hitting the floor actually!)
>
> >> That's why I mentioned the keep option to the original poster,
> otherwise
> >> yes, nothing is deallocated.
> I missed it - sorry. But you did hide it well :o)
>
>
> I've tried it out on a 64KB uniform extent LMT and it 'just works'.
>
> That's today's first learning experience !
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Regards,
> Norman.
>
> Thinks : didn't I write a FAQ for Jonathan on this very subject
> .............
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> Norman Dunbar
> Database/Unix administrator
> Lynx Financial Systems Ltd.
> mailto:Norman.Dunbar_at_LFS.co.uk
> Tel: 0113 289 6265
> Fax: 0113 289 3146
> URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com
> -------------------------------------
>
>
Received on Wed Jul 24 2002 - 08:16:37 CDT