Re: Locally Managed Tablespaces ... again!!!

From: Alistair Thomson <thomson_alistair_at_no.spam.yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:17:09 -0000
Message-ID: <avmo5m$cn$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>

Old habits die hard......

LMT's have less recursive sql as a bitmap index is used to manage the extents so they should be more efficient. Some people don't like change.

Alistair

"Charlie Edwards" <charlie3101_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:217ac5a8.0301100657.43251985_at_posting.google.com...
> Oracle 8.1.7.2
>
> Well, on my last project I finally convinced my DBA to try LMTs. So
> he knows about them.
>
> I get transferred to another project and, lo-and-behold, we're back to
> Dictionary Managed Tablespaces (sigh), with tables and indexes in
> separate tablespaces (double sigh).
>
> He says theres no advantage to LMTs as long as you ensure that your
> PCTINCREASE is 0 and your extents are always <4 blocks * (a power of
> 2)> - i.e. 4, blocks, 8 blocks, 16 blocks, 32 blocks etc. His logic
> is that in this case any space freed up will always be available for
> use and so you won't have any fragmentation.
>
> I'd be grateful for any comments as I'm starting to get more than a
> bit frustrated.
>
> TIA,
>
>
> CE
Received on Fri Jan 10 2003 - 09:17:09 CST