Re: decreasing initial extent

From: Howard J. Rogers <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 06:47:21 +1100
Message-ID: <xFZU9.24113$jM5.64166@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>

"Peter Laursen" <ptl_at_edbgruppen.dk> wrote in message news:3e23fcaa$0$206$edfadb0f_at_dread15.news.tele.dk...
>
> "Peter van Rijn" <p.vanrijnREMOVE_at_THISzhew.nl> wrote in message
> news:v27u50s55or2f8_at_corp.supernews.com...
> > alter table <table_name>
> > move
> > storage(initial <desired size>;
> >
> > regards,
> > Peter
> >
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dum question. The Admin Guide has "If the initial extent becomes smaller,
> the INITIAL value changes to reflect the new size of the initial extent. "
> in the text on alter table x deallocate unused. How come deallocate does
not
> decrease the initial extent? Because the tablespace is LMT?
>

Got it in one. In LMTs, assuming uniform extent allocation, there can be only one extent size... whatever was specified at tablespace creation time. Deallocate use ordinarily chops off extents at the table's High Water Mark (on a 5-block boundary), which implies leaving behind 'odd-sized' extents. Since those physically can't exist in LMTs, the deallocate unused is not going to have the effect you were hoping for.

Regards
HJR
> /Peter
>
>
Received on Tue Jan 14 2003 - 13:47:21 CST