Re: Impact of changed index inital extent

Myth. The number of extents is irrelevant. Jim

--
Replace part of the email address: kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com
with family.  Remove the negative part, keep the minus sign.  You can figure
it out.
"Daniel Roy" <danielroy10_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b061893.0304161015.14a06cab_at_posting.google.com...


> Which version are you using? 957 extents is probably on the high-side


> of acceptability (Oracle recommends that segments have no more than

> 1024 extents each). If you're on 9i, have you considered using

> automatic segment management (on locally-managed tablespaces)? If not,

> I'd seriously consider setting higher values for INITIAL and NEXT for

> that table (10M each?). If you have too many extents, the segment

> management overhead on the system tables fet$ and uet$ can be quite

> high.

>

> Just my 2 cents

>

> Daniel

>

> Rogbaker_at_gdi.net (Rogbaker) wrote in message

 news:<e40a12ea.0304160619.3b67ca97_at_posting.google.com>...


> > In my database I have an index that had an INITIAL extent of

> > 409,600,000 and a NEXT extent of 5,554,176 but only occupied 1 extent

> > due to the extreme size of the inital extent. I was able to alter both

> > the INITAL and NEXT extent to 256K but I had to increase the max

> > number of extents.  I was suprised that Oracle let me do this, I

> > thought I could only change the next, or is that just for tables not

> > indexes. It now has 957 extents instead of only one. Is there any

> > detremental effect from doing this?

> > Thanks for comments,

> > Roger