Re: Shrinking Rollback Segemnts in a Proc

Comment below.

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 08:42:54 +1000, "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>Kenneth Koenraadt wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Howard,
>>
>> I am certainly not in favor of "optimal", it's like sand in the
>> shoes.....
>>
>> But it should not be necessary to shrink them (manually or
>> automatically) on a regular basis. The ideal is to let them grow as
>> necessary and leave them alone, I think.
>>
>> And maybe, twice a year, you could shrink them manually, when an
>> application goes crazy, generating 16 Gb of undo space.....shrinking
>> them on a regular basis (e.g every night) would hide such symptoms of
>> crazy applications. That was what I meant.
>>
>> - Kenneth Koenraadt
>>
>
>Can't agree, Kenneth. It takes but one careless user to fail to commit
>something, and rollback segments will start to grow. Yes, you should
>monitor for blocking transactions on a continuous basis and take action
>that way; but that's precisely why a procedure to monitor and shrink if
>needed is such a good idea.

Absolutely. You should *monitor* RBS and *then* possibly shrink (or do whatever else necessary) if something is evidently wrong, but you should not just shrink without first examining if anything was wrong, which I understood the OP wanted to do. That way user craziness may never be detected.
>
>I know what you're saying: size the things so they don't need to grow to
>accomodate normal transactions. Absolutely. But users being users, that's
>never enough.
>
>Regards
>HJR
Received on Sat Oct 04 2003 - 03:27:40 CDT