Re: LMT and DMT

tingl wrote:

> "Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:UHX_9.38406$jM5.97340_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > "tingl" <one4all_at_all4one.not> wrote in message
> > news:MZU_9.2302$ek4.226461_at_newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > I would say a properly sized LMT is better than a poorly managed DMT,
> and
> > > vice versa.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Tingl,
> >
> > and I would say that the above is too simplistic a comment.
> >
> > There are advantages to LMT that make it easier to have a "properly
> > configured LMT" and harder for the same to be said about DMT.
> >
> > I still think LMT is better ...
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I am not sure what you meant by too simplistic. My intention was to make it
> less simplistic
> than just "LMT is better.". Anyway there is a tradeoff between ease of
> maintenance and
> flexibility. LMT and DMT each has pros and cons. Neither is better than the
> other in all
> situations.
>
> Tingl

I'm inclined to disagree thus I will. I can't think of a single thing a DMT does better than an LMT unless the goal is tablespace fragmentation. And from what I've seen ... it appears that Oracle agrees.

Daniel Morgan Received on Mon Feb 03 2003 - 21:17:30 CST