Re: Data Dictionary: relative

From: Richard Foote <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:15:54 +1000
Message-ID: <lCtV9.25253$jM5.67091@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>

"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:JUoV9.25118$jM5.66456_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...

> Which just goes to prove that sometimes I can't remember things the right
> way around, and sometimes I just get them plain wrong: 102*3* is the right
> number of data files, not 1022.
>

Hi again Howard,

I 'think' the 1022 is O/S dependent.

I've a question I hope you might be able to answer. Do you have any ideas on why Oracle chose to add the object id portion to the rowid and make the file number "relative" rather than simply allowing the file number portion bit to be bigger.

I believe the answer has to do with efficiencies in how it deals with partitioned objects but I've yet to be convinced that it's merits or otherwise.

Cheers

Richard Received on Thu Jan 16 2003 - 03:15:54 CST

Re: Data Dictionary: relative_fno question