From: Jimmy <anonymous@anonymous.com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
Subject: Re: Number of extents related with performance?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 17:21:51 -0800
Organization: No no no
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <3A512D2F.A10302F5@anonymous.com>
References: <3A4C4F06.110C4CB6@anonymous.com> <3a4c9864.13389917@news-server> <3A4EE61B.A1323E21@anonymous.com> <3a4f1941.1335067@news-server>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-050.COMP.POLYU.EDU.HK
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: Nuno Souto <nsouto@nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam>


Hello Nuno,

	I am using block size 8K. In fact, the whole story is, I am DBA, and
some developers complain about the performance of the database. I found
that most of the tables they were using is 32K. Later, I truncated some
tables, change the size of NEXT parameters of some large tables to a
higer values, and then load the data again to these tables. After the
above action, developers said the performance is improved. In fact, some
papers mentioned that the performance is not related with the extent
sizes (provided that no. of extents below 1000). 

David


Nuno Souto wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 23:54:03 -0800, Jimmy <anonymous@anonymous.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >       I am using Oracle 8.0.6.1 and solaris 2.6.
> >
> >       The result make me feel that the size of extents is so important in
> >creating the objects.
> >
> >
> 
> Very strange.  See if you can get a copy of the paper I mentioned.
> It's worth reading.  Might be because of block size you're using, or
> the specific nature of the applications you have running.
> 
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto@bigpond.net.au.nospam
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html