Re: Next extent with Locally managed tablespace on 9i

Nuno Souto <nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam> wrote:
>In article
><E2F6A70FE45242488C865C3BC1245DA702741FF4_at_lnewton.leeds.lfs.co.uk>, you
>said (and I quote):
>
>> 64 MB : Objects up to 32,000 MB (32 GB)
>>
>
>Yikes! Nope, no way. Too large. If you have objects THAT large, think
>partitioning. It's the best way to handle these monsters (with current
>technology!): divide to conquer.
>
>And so on. Just my $0.02, but the subject is interesting and I'd really
>like to know other's thoughts on this?

Some of us are stuck with very large clusters, which can't be partitioned or moved, or just about any other nice table manipulation feature introduced since Oracle 7.

This cluster can grow to hundreds of GB in some environments. I've tested it in an LMT with very large extents (up to 1GB), and had no obvious problems (beyond those inherent in a single segment of hundreds of GB).

-- 
Andrew Mobbs - http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andrewm/