RE: One large tablespace.

  • From: "Powell, Mark D" <mark.powell@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:15:04 -0500

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
> Interesting.
> 2.  Creating lots of locally managed tablespaces with different 
> uniform extent sizes (128k, 4m, 128m) with datafiles on each mount
> 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
"Zen is not easy.
It takes effort to attain nothingness.
And then what do you have?
Bupkes."  -- The Goddess


Other related posts: