RE: Locally managed tablespaces - autoallocate vs. uniform
- From: "Allen, Brandon" <Brandon.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "pythianbrinsmead@xxxxxxxxx" <pythianbrinsmead@xxxxxxxxx>, "peter.schauss@xxxxxxx" <peter.schauss@xxxxxxx>, "'oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:45:09 -0700
I think that depends on how you define "fragmentation". If you define it as
having small extents that can't be used because they're smaller than the next
extent sizes of your objects, then I don't think it's even possible with
system-managed extents (i.e. AUTOALLOCATE) - I believe autoallocate is smart
enough to make use of smaller-than-desired extents if it has to when the
tablespace is full, and this is something that UNIFORM cannot do. This is
documented, along with some other discussion in favor of using AUTOALLOCATE, in
the white paper "ORACLE9I SPACE MANAGEMENT DEMYSTIFIED" available in Metalink
247752.1.
Regards,
Brandon
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mark Brinsmead
Fragmentation of free space is impossible with uniform extent sizes. It is
merely rare with automatic extent sizes, but definitely achievable.
________________________________
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message or
attachments hereto. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business
of this company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
Other related posts: