RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters
- From: "Mercadante, Thomas F" <thomas.mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Oracle-L@Freelists. Org (E-mail)" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:00:26 -0400
I guess I left out the "locally managed" part! That is what I meant, of
course! :)
Tom Mercadante
Oracle Certified Professional
-----Original Message-----
From: Niall Litchfield [mailto:niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:58 AM
To: thomas.mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Paul.Vincent@xxxxxxxxx; Oracle-L@Freelists. Org (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters
Comments in line
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:57:31 -0400, Mercadante, Thomas F
<thomas.mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Check the storage params on the tablespace. Could be that the initial
> extent for the tbs is 512k. I think this would trump the table
> storage param.
If only that were the case!
object storage takes precedence over the tablespace clause (which if you
think about it just defines a default value for new objects) for traditional
tablespaces.
There is a rather important change though for locally managed tablespaces
where the object clauses are [1] ignored. I'd hazard a guess then that Paul
has a locally managed tablespace with uniform extent management and a
uniform size of 512k.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com
[1] Strictly they are not *ignored* at creation since the requested initial
size for the object *determines* how many extents are initially allocated.
The extents follow the tablespace policy though. So in Paul's case I would
expect a new object with initial and next of 800k to get two extents on
creation each of 512k - requested more than 512k therefore need 2 extents.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
