"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<40c37681$0$1586$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> "yls177" <yls177_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c06e4d68.0406060426.2ab5ccf0_at_posting.google.com...
> > is it true that as long as i dont drop/truncate tables, then there
> > will be no tablespace fragmentation provided that i set my storage
> > parameters at tablespace level as the below
> >
> > 1) initial extent=next extent
> > 2) pctincrease 0
> >
> > thanks
>
> I think I have answered this at great length elsewhere in replies to you.
> Starting a new thread on the same topic isn't going to change the answer.
>
> Tablespace fragmentation is what happens when (A) you drop or truncate or
> move objects, thus freeing space; and (B) where the objects so moved,
> truncated or dropped had different sizes of extents.
>
> Your points 1 and 2 do NOT guarantee the same sized extents, because they
> are merely default storage clause items, and default storage clauses can be
> ignored by segments that are created with their own storage
> clauses.Therefore, your points 1 and 2 cannot guarantee no tablespace
> fragmentation, because (B) above could still happen.
>
> If you promise completely and utterly 100% that you will never, ever, move,
> drop or truncate an object in a tablespace, then fragmentation will not
> happen, because you are not doing (A) above. But the chances of you truly
> being able to keep such a promise for the lifetime of a database is slim.
>
> As I am sure I've told you before, a better way to avoid tablespace
> fragmentation is to use the MINIMUM EXTENT clause. And the only 100%
> cast-iron way of never getting fragmentation is to use uniformly-sized
> locally managed tablespace.
>
> Why are you asking all of this all over again?
>
> Regards
> HJR
appreciate your replies... assured that this shalt be my last on this topic
cheers
Received on Mon Jun 07 2004 - 23:45:39 CDT
