Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: locally managed tablespace

Re: locally managed tablespace

From: Jonathan Lewis <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:34:26 -0000
Message-ID: <981538254.15078.0.nnrp-12.9e984b29@news.demon.co.uk>

Howard,

Which platform and specific version: the behaviour I got on 8.1.5 (specifically 8.1.5.0.0) was not as you describe -

Under 8.1.5.0.0 on NT (and 8.1.7 on HP-UX 11),

If I specify

    storage (initial 3M next 2M)
on a tablespace with uniform storage of 1M, then I get 3 extents of 1M each.

However, there is the case where I specify

    storage (initial 3M next 2M minextents 2) in which case I get 5 extents of 1M each.

Or even :

    storage (initial 1M next 2M minextents 4 pctincrease 50) where I get 11 extents of 1M - a notional

    1M, 2M, 3M, 4.5M (rounded up).

In other words, my initial response was a little superficial. Oracle will consider the full storage clause in the traditional way, then convert the result into the smallest number of uniform extents required to contain the result. Setting next_exent to the uniform size after the object is created.

Is it possible that your test table also had a 'minextents' clause ?

--
Jonathan Lewis
Yet another Oracle-related web site:  http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk

Practical Oracle 8i:  Building Efficient Databases
Publishers:  Addison-Wesley

Reviews at: http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/book_rev.html



Howard J. Rogers wrote in message <3a8100a4_at_news.iprimus.com.au>...

>Interesting -Just discovered this today. In 8.1.7 (and I believe in
8.1.6),
>exactly what Jonathan says should happen does.
>
>With uniform extent size=1m, and a segment created with initial=3m next
=2m,
>you get 3 initial extents of 1m each. Then you say "allocate extent" -and
>you get a single 1m extent.
>
>What I found interesting today is that that is *not* what 8.1.5 did. In
>8.1.5, you would have ended up acquiring 2 extra extents of 1 meg each, to
>fulfil the "2m next" requirement.
>
>I'm slightly gobsmacked that a mere point-release should introduce such a
>difference in something so basic as extent allocation behaviour. Mind you,
>8.1.5 is a dog of a product anyway, and 8.1.6 at least is always infinitely
>preferable.
>
Received on Wed Feb 07 2001 - 03:34:26 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US