If you just one large tablespace I vote for auto-allocate; otherwise I might go with one large object and one small to medium object tablespace using uniform extents. For the large object I would use an extent size somewhere between 5M and 20M depending on the object sizes. For the small object tablespace I would use something between 64K and 512K again depending on the sizes of the objects to be stored. Probably 64K and 5M based on the initial 4M estimate. HTH -- Mark D Powell -- -----Original Message----- From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of bill thater Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 1:47 PM To: Tom.Terrian@xxxxxxx Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: One large tablespace. > 1. Creating 1 large locally managed tablespace (uniform extent size > of 4m) with a datafile on each mount point for all of our data and indexes. > Interesting. > > 2. Creating lots of locally managed tablespaces with different > uniform extent sizes (128k, 4m, 128m) with datafiles on each mount point. > > Certainly option 2 is the more traditional approach but is there > anything wrong with option 1. Is it slower? Harder to maintain? Any > type of file locking problems? you get the standard Oracle answer "it depends.";-) the problem i can see with option 1 is that there would be a lot of lost space if the data doesn't fint into the 4m size. my preference is for option 2 for the reason i can taylor the extent sizes to match the type of data i'm putting in them. however this is a moot point if the data you're dealing with fits the larger extent sizes well. -- -- Bill "Shrek" Thater ORACLE DBA shrekdba@xxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkes." -- The Goddess -- -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l