"ocp8" <n_stimely_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4714c80f.0305200514.76f545c4_at_posting.google.com...
> Hello..
>
> I am looking to rebuild my 80 gig database with an 8k block in the
> next couple of weeks and doing a reorg at the same time. I am
> implementing locally managed tablespaces with a uniform extent size.
> I would like to use the advice I found in the article "How to Stop
> Defragmenting and Start Living: The Definitive Word on Fragmentation".
> My question is what extent sizes to use? The article recommends 3
> sizes: 128k, 4m & 128m. If I have a table that is 9 gig in size it
> would literally use thousands of extents using an initial and next of
> 128m. What sizes would be the best to use? I have tables ranging
> from 260k to 9g. Thank you for your advice!!
I see you have had a couple of suggestions already. I can't really add to
them except to say.
- Objects over (say) 4gb really are good candidates for partitioning, at
which point it only makes sense to care about number of extents per
partition. (Though I'll admit to a 3.5gb object with std edition - hence no
partitioning - aren't LOBs wonderful?).
- 9216/128 = 72
- If you are going to use Uniform LMT then 3 tablespaces of 128k,4m & 128m
would suit you well, as would the autoallocate sizes listed in HJR's post,
as come to that would 1,10 & 100m. You might want to size each tablespace at
(N*extent_szie)+64k to avoid wasting space (where N is an integer). The gist
is pick sizes that are an order of magnitude or so apart and place objects
in the tablespace that makes most sense.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
*****************************************
Please include version and platform
and SQL where applicable
It makes life easier and increases the
likelihood of a good answer
******************************************
Received on Tue May 20 2003 - 16:02:05 CDT
