Re: Oracle file managerC

Hi Jared,

Sorry about the followup, instead of an e-mail reply, but the MIS at large hasn't set up our VMS news reader 100%, yet. Have to see him about that.

In article <744.1599.uupcb_at_factory.com>, jared.hecker_at_factory.com (Jared Hecker) writes:
> TO: ssteph_at_oracle.com
>
> SR> Scott Stephens -- representing my own rantings.
> SR>
>
> Is that 'cuz KJ won't let you rant on CI$ anymore?

I haven't been on CI$ for a long time because I went to work "in the field" in Oracle Singapore for 1 1/2 years. I just got back to HQ Sept 1, and haven't gotten around to getting another account, (they gave my account to someone else, BTW, and I ended up having to cancel a credit card to get out of that mistake). Apparently, CI$ wizardship has been passed to the IOUG, so it is more of a user forum anyway.

I met KJ in Australia during the APOUC (Asia-Pacific Oracle User's conference). He is a real sweet guy in person, with a crowd of disciples following him wherever he goes, (asking him RDBMS questions). We have always seen eye-to-eye in most cases and was always willing to consider any new ideas we would give him. He taught his 2 favorite subjects, referential integrity and competitive information, in our internal Oracle 7 class. He is always interesting to listen to and a very good speaker.

>
> BTW, Scott, when the heck are you guys gonna allow >99 extents
> per table? It's a real PITN when you have a mix of large and
> small tables. Fragmentation becomes more than annoying in an
> active database.
>

The 99 MAXEXTENTS is a default, not a limit. If you create a tablespace and ALTER TABLESPACE MAXEXTENTS 999, it makes the extents limit open-ended and is only dependent on your block size. 2048 byte blocks give 121 extents, 4096 bytes give about 243 extents. I've always felt that they ought to get multi-block "extent tables", but apparently this would be a severe performance problem if you had to scan multiple blocks to find your desired extent. Since the virtual limit is a really-large-number-which-might-as-well-be-unlimited for a single extent, a well organized database should not have problems, or should be looking at temporary tables that can be dropped. So...I don't see them raising this limit in the future, (an this from an "Oracle").

>
> Maybe you guys can kick it around bettween games of 3-on-3 at the
> health club...
>
>
> jh
> ---
> . RoseReader 1.70 G002691
>

Scott Stephens - representing his own rantings on top of rantings. Received on Wed Sep 30 1992 - 22:38:39 CET