Re: LMT's with autoallocate
- From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: hporas@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 14:12:08 +0000
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 08:53:09 -0500, Henry Poras <hporas@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just looking at PSINDEX tablespace, I
> created it with EXTENT MANAGEMENT LOCAL UNIFORM SIZE 100K.
......
> After building the tablespace using uniform extents, I created
> a new LMT tablespace (PSINDEX_TMP) using AUTOALLOCATE. I then rebuilt
> all of my indexes from PSINDEX into PSINDEX_TMP.
.......
> The size of the original data file for psindex was ~2.6G
> (2,648,391,680 bytes). After rebuilding stuff into psindex_tmp, the
> size was ~ 2G (2,021,343,232 bytes).
Well 100 is 156% of 64. Your test is therefore weighted in favour of
autoallocate since your smallest allocation unit is 56% larger in the
ULMT test. You'd need to compare ULMT with a min size of 64k with
Autoallocate. I'd predict that the numbers would come out (marginally)
in favour of ULMT in this case.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
