RE: locally managed with autoallocation
- From: "Koivu, Lisa" <Lisa.Koivu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:49:33 -0500
Hi Matt,
Well, for someone like me who doesn't have disk space to spare,
autoallocation helps me because when you set allocation type to uniform,
the first extent is used for the bitmap. So, for example I create a
tablespace and set allocation type uniform=200mb. The tablespace will
immediately display with 200MB already used.
Besides, the autoallocate extent sizes are all multiples of each other.
I use autoallocate and I am very happy with it. Wasted space is kept to
a minimum and the old rule of small/med/large objects in separate
tablespaces is out the window, really. Having small and large objects
in the same tablespace ensures that the small extents will indeed be
used.
If you have the time to do the proper analysis to determine the correct
extent size and categorize all your objects... well, more power to you.
It just seems to me doing this is extra effort for very little benefit.
Just my two cents... fwiw...
Lisa Koivu
Monkey Mama
Orlando, FL, USA
-----Original Message-----
From: Adams, Matthew (GE Consumer & Industrial)
[mailto:MATT.ADAMS@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 11:37 AM
To: 'oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: locally managed with autoallocation
I know we are WAY behind the times here, still using
dictionary managed tablespaces for everything. I'm starting to
evaluate methods for setting up tablespaces and have to
ask this:
Why would anyone use autoallocation with locally managed
tablespaces when it appears to be open to the same kind
of honeycombing fragmentation problems that exist with
dictionary tablespaces that don't use uniform extent sizes?
Natt
----
Matt Adams - GE Appliances - matt.adams@xxxxxxxxxxx
When I'm around hard-core computer geeks, I want
to say, 'Come outside -- the graphics are great!'
- Matt Weinhold
"The sender believes that this E-Mail and any attachments were free of any
virus, worm, Trojan horse, and/or malicious code when sent. This message and
its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the
message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility
for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The
sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any
way from this message or its attachments."
Other related posts:
