Re: LMT Autoallocate initial, tot # of extents

  • From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Barbara Baker <barb.baker@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:43:26 +0100

On 6/8/05, Barbara Baker <barb.baker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> 
> Niall:
> When I said I agonized over autoallocate vs uniform, I really meant
> agnoized. I waffled back-and-forth for several weeks, reviewing the
> discussions on this list, and essentially not getting anywhere. I
> have thousands of objects to move from DMT to LMT. In the final
> analysis (and I know this is a severe cop-out), I decided that I just
> don't need the grief! The application that sits on top of this
> database is a heap o' crap, so it just didn't seen to matter that
> much. Nearly impossible to tell how objects are going to grow/shrink.
> So I decided to quit waffling and just do something.
 My original post did come across as rather harsh, sorry if you took it as a 
criticism. By 'don't care' I really intended something along the lines you 
went down, I see autoallocate as a "dump everything in there and forget 
about sizing" choice. if I was in marketing I would describe this as ease of 
administration or some such. This is not a bad choice at all. All I was 
*trying* to say was that I wouldn't bother trying to understand why you got 
the number and size of extents that you did, you can't do anything about it 
and others with slightly different setups might get different results. 
 cheers
   
-- 
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com

--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. oracle-l
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2005