Return-Path: Delivered-To: 2-oracle-l@orafaq.com Received: (qmail 20512 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2006 01:20:10 -0500 Received: from freelists-180.iquest.net (HELO turing.freelists.org) (206.53.239.180) by 69.64.49.119 with SMTP; 6 Jun 2006 01:20:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 2D0EF34DA8A; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 02:18:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21445-08; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 02:18:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 96B5C34DA81; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 02:18:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Tue, 06 Jun 2006 02:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 9C87934DA71 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 02:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21353-08 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 02:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from STCIMSS3.stc.com.sa (stcimss3.stc.com.sa [212.118.128.102]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id F07D634D9B8 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 02:15:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from STCIMSS3.stc.com.sa (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.stc.com.sa (Postfix) with ESMTP id D63952EC0 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:19:20 +0300 (AST) Received: from ednwebmail01.stc.corp (unknown [212.118.128.84]) by STCIMSS3.stc.com.sa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0A12EA8 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:19:20 +0300 (AST) Received: from ednriymsg04.stc.corp ([10.32.2.67]) by ednwebmail01.stc.corp with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:16:21 +0300 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C68930.BAAEDFB8" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Subject: Rapidly Growing space usage in TS with only two indexes Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:16:21 +0300 Message-ID: <1CEF5E157E52CC4BAFC7AA5549364E6A028D13F7@ednriymsg04.stc.corp> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Rapidly Growing space usage in TS with only two indexes Thread-Index: AcaJMLtzaeEII01eQcWKkk2riobUXw== From: "Nizar Ahmed" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jun 2006 06:16:21.0703 (UTC) FILETIME=[BB18AD70:01C68930] X-archive-position: 35611 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: gnahmed.c@stc.com.sa Precedence: normal Reply-to: gnahmed.c@stc.com.sa X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at avenirtech.net ------_=_NextPart_001_01C68930.BAAEDFB8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All, =0D I have a table (partitioned - list) with approx. 500 million rows. I have two indexes (partitioned - list) on this table in their own separate tablespace. =0D Size of table is roughly 50GB and sizes of the two indexes currently are 17 GB each. =0D For the past 4 days, I have noticed that space is consumed in the index tablespace at the rate of 1 GB per day. =0D This has never happened before and I have been racking my head as to the reason why this is happening. =0D One thing I could think of was a 50: 50 block split when new values have to be inserted in the index. =0D Is there any way I can check this or any other ideas why this could be happening? =0D And is indexes rebuild necessary or warranted here? =0D Thanks, =0D =0D =0D G. Nizar A. Baig =0D =0D Disclaimer: The information in this email and in any files transmitted with= it, is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or= privileged material. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you receive this in= error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any= computer. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,= distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is strictly= prohibited. Statement and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender,= and do not necessarily reflect those of STC. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C68930.BAAEDFB8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear= All,

 

I have a table= (partitioned - list) with approx. 500 million rows.

I have two indexes (partitioned - list) on this table in their own separate= tablespace.

 

Size of table is= roughly 50GB and sizes of the two indexes currently= are

17 GB= each.

 

For the past 4 days, I= have noticed that space is consumed in the index tablespace at the rate of 1 GB= per day.

 

This has never= happened before and I have been racking my head as to the reason why this is= happening.

 

One thing I could= think of was a 50: 50 block split when new values have to be inserted in the= index.

 

Is there any way I can= check this or any other ideas why this could be= happening?

 

And is indexes rebuild necessary or warranted here?

 

Thanks,

 

 

 

G. Nizar A.= Baig

 

 

Disclaimer: The= information in this email and in any files transmitted with it,
is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or= privileged material.
Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you receive this in= error,
please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any= computer.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,= distribution or
any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is strictly= prohibited.
Statement and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender,= and do not
necessarily reflect those of STC.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C68930.BAAEDFB8-- -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l