| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Next extent with Locally managed tablespace on 9i
Morning Nuno,
Well, I did say 'it depends' :o) (That's my CYA !)
More comments embedded .....
Cheers,
Norman.
Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com -------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Nuno Souto [mailto:nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam]
Posted At: Friday, August 02, 2002 4:41 PM
Posted To: server
Conversation: Next extent with Locally managed tablespace on 9i
Subject: Re: Next extent with Locally managed tablespace on 9i
>> Hmmm, what about other considerations?
>> Like:
>> Should we make these somewhat dependent on things like
sort_area_size?
>> What about DFMBR? Should we make these uniform chunks match that
size or
>> multiples of it?
More than likeley we should - I haven't been able to experiment yet - too busy with new servers.
>> > 1 MB : Objects up to 500MB.
>> Nope, don't like it. Too "nice". I go straight for 10Mb as the next
>> one.
Tru, why not - I said it depends. We have a number of tables that are too small for a 10 MB tablespace but too big for 64KB - assuming the 500 extent limit. The users fear that too much space is wasted, but then again, I could leave it in the 64KB tablespace and just have more than my threshold number of extents. (I am talking theory here - our main app HAS to have its tables in one of 5 tablespaces and the names are hardcoded into the scripts - unfortunately.)
>> 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.
True, but some things might not partition very easily.
As you say, it is an interseting subject and will no doubt throw up some conflicting advice :o)
Norm. Received on Mon Aug 05 2002 - 04:04:29 CDT
 |
 |