RE: Locally managed tablespaces - autoallocate vs. uniform
- From: "Powell, Mark D" <mark.powell@xxxxxxx>
- To: "Oracle L" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:04:27 -0400
I say choose what ever method fits your space management plan. We like uniform
extends since we use raw partitions which for a practical purpose do not
support auto-extending of the datafiles, but we have auto-allocate tablespaces
supporting most of our vendor (third-party) products. With one exception where
the product actually managed to create a free space fragmentation condition the
feature works well. For that one product we converted the tablespace to using
uniform extents and have not had an issue since.
-- Mark D Powell --
Phone (313) 592-5148
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Greg Rahn
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:59 PM
To: peter.schauss@xxxxxxx
Cc: Oracle L
Subject: Re: Locally managed tablespaces - autoallocate vs. uniform
I would highly recommend AUTOALLLOCATE. If you want bigger extents, just use a
large INITIAL value (like 100-200MB).
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Schauss, R. Peter (IT
Solutions)<peter.schauss@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> If I could use the autoallocate option, it would simplify my task
> considerably. Is there any disadvantage to doing so?
--
Regards,
Greg Rahn
http://structureddata.org
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
