Re: Segment management auto clause

From: Howard J. Rogers <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 22:00:15 +1000
Message-ID: <a8Lwa.34820$1s1.506090@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>

"Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message >
> Sorry, read it again but I still don't get it. Big tables - RAC, big
tables
> RAC ... nup ?

Last time, then:

I said, ASSM in RAC might be a goer, but otherwise not because of the overhead.
You said, the [space] overhead is not a significant proportion when the tables are large. I said, well in a RAC you would typically expect to have large tables, therefore my advice is not totally contradictory with yours.

It isn't really difficult, except that you went on to deduce that I'd actually said that you wouldn't have big tables outside of a RAC.

But as I also said, this entire ludicrous issue is moot, because the space overhead which as you say diminishes with table size is not the major concern with ASSM: buffer cache utilisation and select and DML performance are the more significant issues, and that bit of the overhead does not diminish with table size.

HJR Received on Thu May 15 2003 - 07:00:15 CDT