Re: ASSM vs. non-ASSM
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:59:56 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <pan.2012.01.31.12.59.56_at_gmail.com>
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.
-- http://mgogala.byethost5.comReceived on Tue Jan 31 2012 - 06:59:56 CST