Re: ASSM vs. non-ASSM

From: Mladen Gogala <>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:59:56 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:37:04 -0800, Noons wrote:

> Actually, he specifically refers in the posts mentined here to it being
> partly a result of auto allocation. Which quite frankly is a bad idea
> at best of times as it leads to fragmentation of free space if the
> tablespace is volatile.

Auto allocation is a bad idea? I don't see why? The extent sizes are standardized on "power of 2" sizes, so whenever an object is dropped, the relinquished extents will be usable by other objects. That seems like a rather sound argument but I maybe missing something. Basically, it's much easier to lump everything related to a single application in one tablespace with auto allocation and ASSM then to carefully store tables and indexes into their own tablespaces, based on projected object size.

Received on Tue Jan 31 2012 - 06:59:56 CST

Original text of this message