Re: should initial = next?

In article <3A7F20CF.D707C57_at_adelaide.edu.au>,   Steve Salvemini <steve.salvemini_at_adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
> Hi, I've read recently of the importance setting the initial extent size
> and all next extent sizes to the same value, and that the overhead of
> for eg 1000 extents is insignificant compared to the gains [Dave Ensor -
> BMC Software]
> (I hope I'm reading this right Dave!)
>
> Anyway, as an example, if I've got a table of 900Mb, currently we are
> setting:
> initial extent to 900Mb
> next entent of 256K
> max extents 400
>
> From reading this article, is it better to have a setting something like
> initial extent to 1098 K
> next entent of 1098 K
> max extents 1000
> (ie 1098*1024 * 600 extents = 900Mb, leaving 200 extents free (=200*1098
> = 219Mb for growth))
>
> Is it generally accepted out there that this is a better approach or is
> this splitting hairs (or did I totally misunderstand this) ?
>

When you get a chance read the SAFE (Simple Algorithm for Fragmentation Elimination; equal allocation policy, different tablespaces for different extent sizes, ...) White Paper available from the Oracle Metalink.

Alex ...

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/ Received on Wed Feb 07 2001 - 15:04:51 CST