Re: extent allocation?

From: Andy Finkenstadt <andy_at_homebase.vistachrome.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 15:26:28 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct29.152628.4039_at_homebase.vistachrome.com>


Oracle does want contiguous extents of the size specified. There is a script from Oracle (which I haven't downloaded yet) which finds the largest contiguous space in the tablespace, however Oracle will find these normally - double check the value of these parameters in your init{SID}.ora file.

		dc_free_extents = 300
		dc_used_extents = 300

This is what I use on my not-too-heavily fragmented production system.

Also - apparently this is occuring during allocation of the TEMPORARY space used by your UNION clause in the SELECT. You can tell the RDBMS that the specified connected user should use a non-SYSTEM tablespace for temporary space:

   ALTER USER andy TEMPORARY TABLESPACE temp;

'temp' is a tablespace we have sitting around with just 60 megabytes of empty space.

Andy

un_at_gdstech.grumman.com (Un Fu) writes:
>When Oracle requests an extent of block size 210, does it
>require this extent to be in contiguous memory? Got the
>following error on one of my sql query that union few tables:
> ORA-01547: failed to allocate extent of size 210 in tablespace 'SYSTEM'
>Looked into the dba_free_space and saw many blocks of smaller sizes.
>Is there a way to tell Oracle to use multiple extents for the query?
>Also, is there a quick way to consolidate the memory without backup
>of the database?
>Thanks!
>--
>****************************************************************************
>Un Un Fu Internet: un_at_gdstech.grumman.com
>Disclaimer: I am solely responsible for what I am saying here!
>****************************************************************************

-- 
Andrew Finkenstadt, Vista-Chrome, Inc., Homes & Land Publishing Corporation
GEnie Unix RoundTable Manager, andy_at_vistachrome.com, andy_at_genie.geis.com.
  Send mail to ora-request_at_vistachrome.com to join Unix, CASE, and 
  Desktop Oracle RDBMS Database discussions.
Received on Thu Oct 29 1992 - 16:26:28 CET

Original text of this message