Re: SQL Server vs Oracle
Date: 1997/10/06
Message-ID: <343c0bc3.19168132_at_newshost>#1/1
On Mon, 06 Oct 1997 06:41:09 -0700, Philip C Plumlee <tegan_at_deltanet.com> wrote:
>
>How unlike me to join a 'vs' thread, but...
>
>Our company fought for a very long time to keep Oracle, and were forced
>to switch to Squeal Server. Administrative cost was the number one
>factor; someone needs to understand that no matter how fast or huge a
>database can get, if we can't safely run the beast we can't use it. The
>money we save firing a DBA can be invested in faster and fatter
>hardware.
>
>The last straw: we had to pay our consultant to come in, grab us by the
>hair, and beat our foreheads against the ground until we repeated
>"Oracle databases cannot ever reclaim storage from any deleted record
>until the entire table drops." WTF ???
>
Wow, that would be a bummer if it were true. Its simply not true at all. A table will never shrink in size by itself but if you repeatably insert/delete/insert/delete/insert/delete, it won't necessarily grow. Blocks will be put on a free list when the space available on the block falls below a pctused setting. If I set pctused on a table to 40%, then as soon as the free space from deleted rows on a block gets to 40% or above, the block will be put on the free list and reused.
Thomas Kyte
tkyte_at_us.oracle.com
Oracle Government
Bethesda MD
http://govt.us.oracle.com/ -- downloadable utilities
Opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Oracle Corporation Received on Mon Oct 06 1997 - 00:00:00 CEST