RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters

  • From: "Mercadante, Thomas F" <thomas.mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'Paul.Vincent@xxxxxxxxx'" <Paul.Vincent@xxxxxxxxx>, "Oracle-L@Freelists. Org (E-mail)" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:57:31 -0400


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

Tom Mercadante
Oracle Certified Professional

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Vincent [mailto:Paul.Vincent@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 2:46 AM
To: Oracle-L@Freelists. Org (E-mail)
Subject: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters

I just spotted something puzzling. I was checking the sizing of some Oracle
8i tables, using TOAD's Schema Browser. There are tables and indexes which
have initial and next extent sizes of 409600 (400K), have only a single
extent, yet the "Size in bytes" is given as 524288 (512K). The db_block_size
is 8192 (8K), and 400K is a multiple of 8K, so why do the storage parameters
for these objects appear to have been ignored? Any ideas?

Paul Vincent
Database Administrator
University of Central England

Other related posts: