Re: LMT advice

Noons wrote:

> "Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:TSgdb.126232$bo1.106131_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>> I don't follow the question, what does uniform size have to do with ASSM
>> ?
>>
>> If I did, I would help, honest :)
>
> The original message from Howard seemed to indicate there was a
> choice to be made for ASSM?

No! I hate ASSM with a vengeance, unless the circumstances are right for it. I was recommending autoallocated LMTs, which is not the same thing as ASSM at all.

ASSM = 'create tablespace blah... segment space management auto' Autoallocate = 'create tablespace blah...extent management local autoallocate'

ASSM deals with when a block becomes available for an insert. Autoallocate merely sizes extents automatically for you.

The one is the invention of the devil (OK, I exaggerate slightly) and the other is a gift from Heaven (well, OK, ditto).

Regards
HJR
>If there is (and note: I don't have
> 10g in my hands, so I can't confirm), then it's really not that
> much different.
>
> My guess is there isn't. It will use an algorithm based on
> apparently 64K (why 64K?).
>
> I have only one concern with ASSM at this stage: is it smart enough
> to allocate minimal blocks to an empty object? Because if it allocates
> 64K to empty ones, then it will be wasting disk in a major way with
> applications that define thousands of empty objects. Yes, I know disks
> are cheap. Not THAT cheap yet...
>
>
  Received on Sat Sep 27 2003 - 10:14:02 CDT