tilwenbr_at_netscape.net wrote:
> joel-garry_at_home.com (Joel Garry) wrote in message news:<91884734.0410051646.7a271f26_at_posting.google.com>...
>
>>mike.borden_at_gmail.com (tilwenbr_at_netscape.net) wrote in message news:<2d4a7b11.0410050819.666c3e1c_at_posting.google.com>...
>
> Ok, yes I meant LMT. :) They just do not support it. I'm not sure why
> but they do not. I'm thinking becuase when they do updates to the
> schema they explictly set the storage settings and such when a table
> is created. However, I have not tried creating a table with storage
> settings and tried putting that table into a LMT tablespace, so I do
> not know if it would fail or not. I do not have the "privelege of a
> play db" here. I just know that they do not support LMT with 8.1.7.4.
> Hec, they are just supporting 92.
>
> MIke
>
>
>>Yes. But note that if you unload and reload the table it will apply
>>to everything.
>>
>>So for example, if you have a lot of full blocks, and change these
>>settings, nothing will happen until a given block is modified or
>>inserted to. But if you export/import, the table will be much larger
>>because of all the free space that must now be maintained. This and
>>other strange effects can be surprising if you don't think it through.
>> You must be aware of how data is inserted and updated by the
>>application.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>BTW, this is a vendor db, so we can not go to DM tablespaces yet. :(.
>>
>>I hope you mean LMT, and why not?
>>
>>
>>>Mike
>>
>>jg
I suspect they are clueless and that is why. I'd run their software on a
test box with LMT and then push it to production. The worst I can see
happening is no improvement in performance.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
Received on Thu Oct 07 2004 - 23:25:31 CDT
