Re: Locally managed tablespaces and migrated rows

We're using them and we like them. I'm sure Oracle is not recommending you put everything into a single locally managed tablespace. Why not have as many tablespaces as you need (with different uniform extent sizes) to accommodate your different objects. It shouldn't really take all that many.

Van

"Nuno Souto" <nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam> wrote in message news:3af6c86c.24242540_at_news-server...
> On 7 May 2001 13:23:24 GMT, xmark.powell_at_eds.com.x wrote:
>
> >object taking too many extents. I think the factual information for how
 many
> >extents is too many and how much wasted space is too much is currently
> >non-existent. The numbers you use should probably be 'confort' level
> >numbers.
>
> Yeah, good point. Fact is: with LMTS and uniform allocation, all
> extents are same size. That doesn't automatically match every
> situation. There are many instances in PS where one knows certain
> tables are gonna be empty or nearly, so they should have a much
> smaller extent.
>
> But you should hear the local ORACLE education guys: one would think
> LMTS is the best thing since sliced bread! They are recommending them
> across the board as some sort of universal panacea... I'm having
> tremendous trouble convincing a newbie DBA that it is not the case.
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_bigpond.net.au.nospam
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html
Received on Mon May 07 2001 - 18:01:40 CDT