Re: Number of extents too high

From: David Fitzjarrell <fitzjarrell_at_cox.net>
Date: 3 Dec 2004 08:42:25 -0800
Message-ID: <9711ade0.0412030842.69dd1337@posting.google.com>

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<41b0406d$0$8114$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> Chloe Crowder wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > is there a point at which the number of extents for a table/index in a
> > locally managed tablespace becomes too high? I've seen a number of
> > postings in the group which say not to worry, 40 or 50 isn't a
> > problem, but we have a number of tables which have hundreds of
> > extents, and at least three with over a thousand (the highest being an
> > index with over 22,000, which seems a bit excessive!).
> >
> > Chloe Crowder
>
>
> 22,000 extents is definitely excessive, and I don;t care what ectent
> management mechanism you're dealing with!!
>
> The physics and mechanics are discussed here:
>
> http://www.dizwell.com/html/extent_numbers.html
>
> Incidentally, and by way of a short answer: a few hundred extents in LMT
> isn't a major drama.
>
> regards
> HJR
One wonders how an index in a locally managed tablespace can grow to 22,000 extents, unless the extems are uniform and quite small. Does the table this index is built upon have a similar number of extents?

Simply curious as to how this could happen ...

David FItzjarrell Received on Fri Dec 03 2004 - 10:42:25 CST