Help: Settle an argument regarding EXTENTS
From: Allan Kelly <ac_kelly_at_bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:12:24 GMT
Message-ID: <sNTL2.924$Ek.377995_at_news1.mia>
We currently have a development project in progress. The whole application revolves around an Oracle 7.3.4 database. The users have told us that they anticipate having roughly 100 GB of data that will have to be archived off regularly after reaching this 100 GB high-water mark after 6 months of use. There are approximately 120 tables in the main schema. One of which, will hold approximately 57-60 GB of data when the high-water mark is reached and weekly archival begins (at the six month mark).
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:12:24 GMT
Message-ID: <sNTL2.924$Ek.377995_at_news1.mia>
We currently have a development project in progress. The whole application revolves around an Oracle 7.3.4 database. The users have told us that they anticipate having roughly 100 GB of data that will have to be archived off regularly after reaching this 100 GB high-water mark after 6 months of use. There are approximately 120 tables in the main schema. One of which, will hold approximately 57-60 GB of data when the high-water mark is reached and weekly archival begins (at the six month mark).
My problem is: we have a contractor DBA hired to manage the database and who stubbornly insists on allocating the complete storage size each table will occupy after six months in the INITIAL EXTENT. Example: for the main table described above, he wants to build the table with INITIAL set to 60 GB and NEXT set to 1.5 GB. He insists on building the other tables the same way.
Knowing Oracle as I do, I find this more than a little disturbing. However, this DBA insists that "that's the way he's always built tables", with no other explanation or facts to back up his assertion.
Trying to keep an open mind here, I am asking: Is there any benefit to this scheme he proposes? Let me hear your pro's and con's, please.
Allan
Received on Tue Mar 30 1999 - 01:12:24 CEST