"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote in message
news:1117116008.895087_at_yasure...
> Matthias Hoys wrote:
>> "DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote in message
>> news:1117062970.747334_at_yasure...
>>
>>>Matthias Hoys wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I meant that there are a lot of "holes" in our tablespace map because of
>>>>the large differences between the initial/next extent size of all the
>>>>objects. I don't know if we will see a performance gain after the
>>>>migration but we will definitely win diskspace (30-40%) by "compacting"
>>>>the data.
>>>
>>>The subject says 10g. That means you are using LMT. So before you go
>>>fixing "holes" and claiming that initial and next extent sizes are
>>>different ... explain how you have done whatever it is you've done.
>>>What is your storage strategy? Because the above statements just don't
>>>compute.
>>>--
>>
>>
>> No no, I mean in our CURRENT db which is Oracle 8i with DM tablespaces.
>> So I suspect we will gain diskspace by moving to LMT on 10g.
>
> Not if you load the data properly. As I asked ... what is your storage
> strategy?
> --
Well it's a database I "inherited", and there was no storage strategy at all
... There were about 20 developers each using their own extent specs ...
80K, 128K, 64K, different sizes for initial/next extents, some
exports/imports done with COMPRESS=Y ...
Received on Thu May 26 2005 - 12:51:43 CDT
