Re: sort area and temp in 9i

From: Howard J. Rogers <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 04:47:38 +1000
Message-ID: <338c9.20191$g9.60952@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>

Richard Foote wrote:

> Hi Howard,
>
> I think Michael is asking what to set the uniform size if you set a pga
> aggregate target (and hence don't actually set a sort_area_size).
>
> The standard sort_area_size should influence the size of the uniform size
> in the temp tablespace but I strongly doubt Oracle will do this the other
> way around.
>
> It's a good question and one for which I don't have an immediate answer,
> although I'm working on it ...
>

Ah. Now I see the point (thanks for that!), and my apologies to the original poster. I don't have a good suggestion either, other than perhaps to set the uniform size to the pga_aggregate_target itself.

It is possible, though, that this is one place where autoallocate might be a good idea.

Regards
HJR
> Cheers
>
> Richard
> "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3d6e7b5b_at_dnews.tpgi.com.au...

>> Michael Streeton wrote:
>>
>> > In 9i it seems better to have a LMT temp tablespace. When specifying a

> pga

>> > target aggregate size, is it possible to influence the sort area size
>> > by setting the temp tablespace to a uniform extent allocation or does
>> > it

> not

>> > matter.
>> >
>> > Many Thanks
>> >
>> > Mike
>>
>> Temporary tablespaces should *always* be uniform size.
>>
>> create temporary tablespace blah tempfile 'blah01.dbf' size 75m
>> extent management local
>> uniform size 64k (or whatever your sort_area_size is set to).
>>
>> Nothing wrong with the above, and everything right. Autoallocated

> temporary

>> tablespace is a disaster.
>>
>> Regards
>> HJR

Received on Sat Aug 31 2002 - 13:47:38 CDT