n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk said...
> "Stephan Bressler" <stephan.bressler_at_siemens.com> wrote in message
> news:b1lrf9$l4r$1_at_news.mch.sbs.de...
> >
> > > thing. They prevent "tablespace fragmentation" (which isn't a
> performance
> > > issue, but is definitely a waste of space issue).
> > Are you sure? This is true in case of uniform LMTs, not in system managed
> > LMTs. You can mimic uniform LMTs with DMTs, too, but choosing 3 TBS (e.g.
> a
> > 64k TBS for small objects, a 1M and a 8M for larger objects).
>
> This is sort of true, but misses the enforcement aspect of LMT's. A DMT can
> specify default storage clauses but anyone with the create object privilege
> can go ahead and specify their own storage clause which takes priority and
> causes fragmentation.
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> Audit Commission UK
>
>
>
Well, I think Daniel offered an excellent solution in another thread
(though I doubt he realized it at the time). He asked if we should go
back to 3x5 cards. I think that's an excellent idea! At least 3x5 cards
have a uniform extent size. Now if I can just remember how to make one
of those smiley faces that shows I'm being facetious.
PS. My apologies to Daniel for quoting him out of context and completely
obfuscating his other post.
--
/Karsten
Received on Mon Feb 03 2003 - 14:56:45 CST
