Re: next extent query

"Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> wrote in message news:3eee2ed6$0$11380$cc9e4d1f_at_news.dial.pipex.com...
> "Arcangelo" <xxx_at_yyy.com> wrote in message
> news:3eee2847$0$24424$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> > (B) The next extent will be the same size as your last one (so check out
> > BYTES in dba_extents), unless you happen to be on one of the
autoallocate
> > boundaries. The barebones autoallocate algorithm goes: first 16 extents
> will
> > be 64K, then to extent #79 will be 1M, then to extent #199 will be 8M,
> > thereafter 64M. So unless you have 15, 79 or 199 extents, your next
extent
> > will be the same as the last one. However, the algorithm gets more
> > complicated if you specify an INITIAL at the time of table creation, and
> if
> > that's the case, see answer (A) above.
>
> I'm still not entirely convinced that the above is true - since with
objects
> growing at different rates it could lead to 'unable to allocate extent'
when
> Oracle could by choosing a different size from the available list. I feel
a
> test coming on. (but not after 4 beers that would be silly - thats the
time
> for theorizing)

Maybe it's the beers, but which bit don't you think is true?

I did mention that the numbers quoted were for the *barebones* autoallocate algorithm. In other words, take an empty autoallocate LMT, create a table with no storage clause.

Anything else, and it gets extremely complicated indeed, granted.

;-| Received on Mon Jun 16 2003 - 16:18:50 CDT