RE: segment fragmentation
- From: "Bobak, Mark" <Mark.Bobak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <breitliw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 02:15:10 -0400
Thanks for the correction on alter table move. Oracle 8, not 9i! I =
don't
know what I was thinking.
As to statistics treatment, that's a good point too. I no longer have =
any 8.0 databases to test with, but in my humble opinion, the 9i =
behavior of=20
the deletion of statistics is the correct thing to do. Once the table =
has=20
been rebuilt, the statistics are (likely to) vary significantly from =
reality.
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Wolfgang Breitling
Sent: Wed 9/8/2004 7:49 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:=09
Subject: RE: segment fragmentation
Excellent point about the statistics. I recently discovered that alter=20
table move in Oracle 9 (9.2.0.5) seems to delete the statistics. I do =
not=20
recall that from Oracle 8.
At 05:26 PM 9/8/2004, Reardon, Bruce (CALBBAY) wrote:
>Also, something others may know but I ran into recently.
>When you move a table, posts normally point out that indexes will need =
=3D
>to be rebuilt (as the post below does).
>You also need to recreate statistics (by your method of preference - =
=3D
>dbms_stats gathering, analyze or dbms_stats setting) on the table and =
=3D
>indexes.
>HTH,
>Bruce Reardon
Regards
Wolfgang Breitling
Centrex Consulting Corporation
www.centrexcc.com=20
--
To unsubscribe - =
mailto:oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&subject=3Dunsubscribe=20
To search the archives - //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
--
To unsubscribe - mailto:oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&subject=unsubscribe
To search the archives - //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
Other related posts:
