Re: Next extent with Locally managed tablespace on 9i

Christian M. wrote:
>
> Ok !
> But I wonder if it's not better to use DMT ! It's more flexible when we use
> small and large objects in the same tablespace.
> Isn't it ?
>
> It is really better to use LMT ????
>
> "Norman Dunbar" <Norman.Dunbar_at_lfs.co.uk> a écrit dans le message news:
> E2F6A70FE45242488C865C3BC1245DA702740504_at_lnewton.leeds.lfs.co.uk...
> > Christian,
> >
> > when creating a new tablespace I'd always do it this way :
> >
> > create tablespace whatever
> > datafile '......' size required_size_plus_1 M
> > extent management local
> > uniform size xxK;
> >
> > For example :
> >
> > create tablespace ENTENTE
> > datafile '......' size 2001 M
> > extent management local
> > uniform size 64K;
> >
> >
> > The extra 1M on the end serves to provide a bit of space over and above
> > the required data size to store the bitmap in.
> > The uniform size bit makes sure that each and every extent allocated
> > will be exactly 64KB in size.
> > INITIAL and NEXT extents on imports or table creation scripts simply
> > allocate enough 64KB extents to cover the requested size.
> >
> > If and index or table is allocated too much space, you can always :
> >
> > alter table xxxx deallocate unused keep 1k;
> >
> > and Oracle will reduce the table or index to the current size of the
> > data in the table. But I wouldn't do that too often in a production
> > system :o)
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Norman.
> >
> > -------------------------------------
> > 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
> > -------------------------------------
> >

In such cases where you cannot be sure of what size objects will be, an auto-allocate lmt may be a good compromise

hth
connor

-- 
==============================
Connor McDonald

http://www.oracledba.co.uk

"Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue..."