Re: Are one row, one column tables "acceptable"?

"Hans Forbrich" <forbrich_at_telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3E946AC1.98DEE8F1_at_telusplanet.net...
> > Hans, sorry if my phrasing was poor, but I don't create one table per
> > tablespace. I have one main tablespace, APPDATA, which holds all the
main
> > tables for my application. I also have APPINDEX for all the indexes,
and
> > APPUSERS and APPTEMP.
>
> Not an issue. Just wanted to clarify since the phrasing reminded me of a
client
> who did have severe disk space problems.
>
> > We actually have -tons- of diskspace available; about 300 GB free (raid
5).
> > Since the disks aren't separate, I figured it was better to have smaller
> > tablespaces, to avoid fragmentation, and to reduce the physical access
time.
> > Is my reasoning valid? I toyed with the idea of creating a 10 GB
tablespace
> > for my main areas, and never having to worry about tablespace ever
again-
> > but wound up using a 50 MB tablespace instead. (laughs) Although, our
old
> > system, Oracle 7, does have very small tablespaces; and our support was
> > always anxious about extending our tablespace. The same fear might have
> > "autoextended itself" onto me!
> >
>
> Oracle 7 and Oracle8/9 are sufficiently different that many of your fears
and
> negative disk/table-space experiences from 7.x days can be set aside.
> Especially true in 9i with newer management aspects.
>
> > I was planning on adding APPSTATIC for this little table, and the
> > possibility for future tables. It's the same thing that you and Ed P
agreed
> > on. (Thanks for the input, Ed! I appreciate it!) But that familiar
fear of
> > our support team seemed to have resurfaced in my message; that's
probably
> > why I asked about an 8k tablespace. Looking back, I can see how that
made
> > no sense at all. In fact, I'm not sure why we ever listened to support.
I
> > found a 100 MB rollback segment in the system area that they created.
Going
> > through old logs, I found out that it was part of a big table archive
> > operation- but they forgot to turn off the 100MB rollback segment, and
we
> > were running off it for 2 years!
> >
>
> <grin> With disk prices the way they are today, I don't see the sense in
> spending too much time minimizing tablespace sizes. I haven't create a
> tablespace less than 10MB in the past 5 years. I would certainly
encourage you
> to create the APPSTATIC tablespace and consider keeping it primarily
read-only
> as discussed.
>
>
> > Daniel mentioned that 10i phases out the dictionary managed tablespaces,
> > which goes back to your mention of an LMT early in this discussion
(message
> > ID <3E8FCE58.DA81CCE1_at_telusplanet.net> ). I read a bit about the LMT on
the
> > net after you mentioned it, but I didn't realize it was being phased
out.
> > It makes me wonder about going back to my initial setup, and recreating
> > those tablespaces to be locally managed; but that'd be a hell of an
export
> > that I don't think would be wise on a production system. Maybe later
this
> > year, right after we get the 9i upgrade, I'll have a chance... anyway,
> > should I just tell this APPSTATIC tablespace to be locally managed, with
a
> > uniform size of 256K? (That's the only mention of LMTs in my 8i DBA
> > Handbook, by Oracle/Osborne Press.)
>
> The Oracle9i Database Admininstrator's Guide has an excellent chapter on
> managing tablespaces and on managing LMTs. I encourage you to read that.
It is
> freely available on Oracle's Technet site at http://otn.oracle.com
>
> /Hans

Thanks for the quick reply! I'll go log on and read up on it. I'm nearing the development phase of this one program where I'm going to need this "parameter" table very shortly!

-T Received on Wed Apr 09 2003 - 14:09:17 CDT