RE: One large tablespace.

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
--

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l


Other related posts: