Re: Reorganizing the DB.. the tricky way

"Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> wrote in message news:3e90888b$0$4850$cc9e4d1f_at_news.dial.pipex.com...
> "Rick Denoire" <100.17706_at_germanynet.de> wrote in message
> news:a1n09vobklb122f9nnhfanvc7f8g4no7ki_at_4ax.com...
> > "Anton Buijs" <aammbuijs_at_xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Non-contiguous extents? Do you mean that extent 2 is not allocating the
> > >blocks beside extent 1?
> >
> > I mean that some free space or space allocated to a different segment
> > will lie in between.
>
> This would be normal, and would not normally be somehing to worry about.
In
> fact the second situation (two extents from different segements next to
each
> other in Oracle's view of the disk - and maybe even on disk) will always
> happen and is never ever a problem. Ever. (Did I say it wasn't a problem).
> You only need to worry about the first situation (free space dotted here
> there and everywhere) if objects can't use the free space, this can be
> avoided entirely by using uniform extent allocation in locally managed
> tablespaces (or by enforcing the equivalent policy on your developers for
> DMTs).
>

Hi Niall,

One important point you forgot to mention, there are no issues per se with having extents from different segments intermingled ;)

I went to a presentation by Quest not long ago where they demonstrated how you could detect segments that are spread all over a tablespace and how you could reorg the tablespace and place all like objects next to each other.

My question of why you would do such a thing was met with a somewhat incredulous look ....

Cheers

Richard Received on Mon Apr 07 2003 - 07:44:18 CDT