Re: LMT and Siebel/Peoplesoft?

fornewsgroups_at_vikas.mailshell.com (Vikas Agnihotri) wrote in message news:<902027f8.0201201730.2f7eac8d_at_posting.google.com>...
> "Daniel A. Morgan" <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3C4A963E.72AB93F5_at_exesolutions.com>...
> > They make sense only if you value performance and dislike fragmented
> > tablespaces. Otherwise just ignore them.
>
> Um. Maybe you didnt read my post entirely. I know that LMTs offer
> performance benefit and eliminate fragmented tablespaces.
>
> But in the context of apps like Siebel and Peoplesoft, where objects
> range from 100K to 50-100M, what is a good extent size to use for a
> LMT with uniform extent allocation policy? Note that 80% of the
> objects are in the 100k ballpark.
>
> If I use a extent size of, say, 256K or even 1M, I waste a lot of
> space since most objects are 100K. If I use a extent size of 100K, the
> larger objects end up having 100s of extents (which is bad, right?)

No... That is a Myth... Worry only when u'r extents go beyond 1000's ... Then you may need to partition the table and all ...

But 100s of Extents is okay ....

>
> Thanks

Regards,
Ganesh R Received on Mon Jan 21 2002 - 00:36:17 CST