Re: Moving 350 meg lob takes nearly 4 gigs
- From: Barbara Baker <barb.baker@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "gparc@xxxxxxx" <gparc@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 10:40:12 -0700
Sten and Gilles:
Thanks so much for your responses.
I actually was aware of a bug with ASSM, but I thought it would manifest
itself after the object was created and started growing. I was surprised to
see this issue at object creation.
I'll keep an eye on these lobs and move them to a separate tablespace if
need be.
Thanks again.
Barb
On 12/2/05, gparc@xxxxxxx <gparc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Barbara,
>
> if your target tablespace is in Automatic Segment Space Management (ASSM)
> check for bugs in Metalink
>
> HTH
>
> Gilles
>
> Selon Barbara Baker <barb.baker@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Oracle 9.2.0.4; Solaris 9
> I have a table (CONTENT) with a lob. The table was 3.7 gig, the lob 385M
> (and the lob's index 5m)
>
> I moved the CONTENT table from DMT to LMT.
> Then I tried to move the lob.
>
> The LOB move took over 1 hour and consumed nearly 4 gigs of space in
> temporary segments. It's now 345 megs in the new LMT tablespace.
>
> BEFORE THE MOVE (in DMT tablespace)
> Ext Init
> Object Size nts Ext
> ---------------------------- ------ ---- -----
> SYS_IL0000397843C00006$$ 5M 1 5M
> SYS_LOB0000397843C00006$$ 385M 57 9M
> CONTENT 3718M 285 10M
>
> DURING THE MOVE:
>
> 10.33548 15M 15 15M
> 10.24218 305M 81 300M
> 10.33932 3264M 219 8M
> CONTENT 3520M 223 8M
>
> AFTER THE MOVE (in LMT tablesapce)
>
> SYS_LOB0000397843C00006$$ 345M 86 200M
> SYS_IL0000397843C00006$$ 10M 10 10M
> CONTENT 3520M 223 8M
>
>
> The LMT tblspace is autoallocate. (I know not everyone here is a big
> autoallocate fan. But I would not expect that to be the issue.)
> Create tablespace arclmt datafile ' ' extent management local
> autoallocate logging online segment space management auto;
>
> Here's the command I used to move the lob:
> alter table arcdb.content move lob(measures) store as (tablespace
> arclmt);
>
> Is this expected?? I can't see why it would take 4 gigs to create a 345
> meg
> object.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
