"Howard J. Rogers" <dba_at_hjrdba.com> wrote in message news:<aft2jm$ahm$1_at_lust.ihug.co.nz>...
> If you do the conversion, remember to create a range of extent-sized
> tablespaces (64K, 512K, 1M, 8M, 64M), and move the right table(s) into the
> right tablespace.
I haven't fully confidence in this. When I have begun to use LMTs I
did some tests. I've measured performance while using different
extent-sized. I've learned that even with 8k extent size and 300MB
object the performance difference against 512k extent size was just
few percent.
So I have decided to use uniform extent size 64K for *ALL* objects in
our databases. The biggest tables has about 500 - 700 MB. My idea is
to has only as few tablespaces as needed, because of administration
overhead.
I want to run new tests to find out the number of extents where
performance penalty will be significant. This time I will also
simulate multiuser environment (100 - 200 session) to check for any
contestion. I hope that I will learn that maybe just two extent sizes
(for objects under GB and above) will deliver sufficient performance,
so there will be no need to use five or more data tablespaces for
objects of various size.
--
_________________________________________
Dusan Bolek, Ing.
Oracle team leader
Note: pagesflames_at_usa.net has been cancelled due to changes (maybe we
can call it an overture to bankruptcy) on that server. I'm still using
this email to prevent SPAM. Maybe one day I will change it and have a
proper mail even for news, but right now I can be reached by this
email.
Received on Wed Jul 03 2002 - 01:57:51 CDT
