Re: Locally Managed Tablespaces
- From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: ganstadba@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:48:49 +0000
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:19:00 -0500, Michael McMullen
<ganstadba@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> why not use system allocation sizes?
> extent management local autoallocate
> If tables are going to be a variety of different sizes this should work
> fine. I use it pretty much everywhere because no one ever has any idea how
> big their tables will get.
Do you try predicting extent growth/free space availability for
segments and if so how do you do it? I have found no way to reliably
predict what size the next extent will be - let alone the next say 5.
check out the ask tom discussion at
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p=4950:8:::::F4950_P8_DISPLAYID:25322140091802
(will wrap) and note that Tom lists the pattern he observes but that
it is subject to change without notice and
sometimes you get different results.
I guess my bias is that I really, really don't care how many extents
my segment has (at least if I did have tens of thousands i'd be
worrying about partitioning instead) and so I see no reason to use
auto.
> You danger, no matter what you do is the originator will throw out some
> wacky initial extent size, like 10Gb and only have one row. Oracle will go
> with their inital but ignore the next.
I agree, but this is surely best managed using some sort of change
management system rather than any software policy.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
