Re: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters
- From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thomas.mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:57:56 +0100
Comments in line
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:57:31 -0400, Mercadante, Thomas F
<thomas.mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> 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
> param.
If only that were the case!
object storage takes precedence over the tablespace clause (which if
you think about it just defines a default value for new objects) for
traditional tablespaces.
There is a rather important change though for locally managed
tablespaces where the object clauses are [1] ignored. I'd hazard a
guess then that Paul has a locally managed tablespace with uniform
extent management and a uniform size of 512k.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com
[1] Strictly they are not *ignored* at creation since the requested
initial size for the object *determines* how many extents are
initially allocated. The extents follow the tablespace policy though.
So in Paul's case I would expect a new object with initial and next of
800k to get two extents on creation each of 512k - requested more
than 512k therefore need 2 extents.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
