Re: segment size

thanks for all your responses. it was actually just my eyes playing tricks on me. the pctincrease was 0. the initial and next extents where NOT 1M as I had said. I was looking at the values of a segment for a different index then I was looking for. the name was almost the same and I just didn't catch the difference. On the bright side I did find a few indexes that needed their parameters to be adjusted and after rebuilding them it saved a few hunded megs.

everything adds up now :-).

thanks again.

"Anurag Varma" <avdbi_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<qUjob.7137$ai6.4573_at_news02.roc.ny>...
> "richie" <richchri_at_erols.com> wrote in message news:9a436674.0310300618.35831e0b_at_posting.google.com...
> > Running oracle 9 and 8i on linux platform (redhat 8). Just a general
> > oracle question. A segment is made up of extents. In our case the
> > initial and next extent size is 1M. One of our segments for example
> > has lets say 800 extents (From the "extents" field from dba_segments
> > or user_segments for that user). So if segments are made up of extents
> > and we have 800 of them at 1M each. Shouldn't the size of the segment
> > (the sum of the "Bytes" field for that segment_name from the
> > dba_segments table) total 800 Mbs? I get a almost 300Mb? Where's the
> > other 500Mbs of space? Does that mean this is lost in fragmented
> > space? So if I rearrange things and everything gets packed nicely with
> > no gaps do I get back
> > the missing 500MBs? Or do these values mean something else that I'm
> > not aware of?
> >
> > thanks.
>
> Are you using LMT's by any chance?.
> If yes then what is the extent size/allocation_type on them?
>
> Anurag
Received on Wed Nov 05 2003 - 11:06:36 CST