Re: Opinions for this storage parameters.

From: Niall Litchfield <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 10:35:16 +0100
Message-ID: <3d22c554$0$238$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net>


"Christopher Merry" <merryct_at_constructingbits.com> wrote in message news:ui5g5c3kijfude_at_corp.supernews.com...
> Just wanted to add a couple of comments to those already mentioned. I
 don't
> think you really need to over-analyze the settings though!

agreed. especially as your estimates are just that estimates. They may be better or worse but they won't be perfect.
> 2) PCTINCREASE value of 1
>
> The PCTINCREASE value of 1 is not necessarily a bad idea. It just depends
> on the circumstances. The only reason I use this setting is when I am
> dealing with a dictionary managed tablespace. This value will force SMON
 to
> coalesce the tablespace freespace periodically (any value greater than 0
> causes this).

You can always coalesce free space periodically with an os or database job.

<snip>

> By the way, a PCTINCREASE of 1 is not going to cause tremendous growth of
> the future extents, but it is a bit of an annoyance if you are a very
> structured DBA that expects to see certain NEXT value patterns.

It will cause tablespace level fragmentation. A value of zero won't. The enforcement of this and the reduced overhead on extent allocation are the reasons why you'll see me (and others) evangelising for Uniform extent size LMT's.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
*****************************************
Please include version and platform
and SQL where applicable
It makes life easier and increases the
likelihood of a good answer

******************************************
Received on Wed Jul 03 2002 - 11:35:16 CEST

Original text of this message