Re: LMT and DMT

From: Richard Foote <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:44:00 +1000
Message-ID: <Tv60a.41221$jM5.104511@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>

"Norman Dunbar" <Norman.Dunbar_at_lfs.co.uk> wrote in message news:E2F6A70FE45242488C865C3BC1245DA70343DAF9_at_lnewton.leeds.lfs.co.uk... <snip snap away>

> Anyway, if you don't want to have 'one size fits all' then simply create
> a couple of other tablespace with their own 'one size' and remember, if
> you ask for initial of 2 Gb in a 64 Kb extent, you'll still get 2 Gb so
> where's the problem ?
>

Evening Norm,

Add to all you've said the fact that such extents result in substantially less overheads due to the in-file bitmap rather than dml to the dd, less stress and contention in the dd, less access overheads within the dd, less issues with cluster overflows in the dd, less issues with dynamic extent allocations/deallocations, etc. etc. etc. and one begins to understand why maybe Oracle is getting rid of DMTs.

Then again, this might be one of those things we may just have to agree to disagree with our friend Tingl.

Cheers

Richard Received on Wed Feb 05 2003 - 06:44:00 CST