RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters
- From: "Paul Vincent" <Paul.Vincent@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Oracle-L@Freelists. Org (E-mail)" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:22:16 +0100
Aha! Yes, that's nailed it! Many thanks, Steve.
If I do a "SELECT TABLESPACE_NAME, MIN_EXTLEN FROM DBA_TABLESPACES", I
can see that MIN_EXTLEN for the tablespace concerned is 128K. So when I
create the table and specify 400K for the initial extent size, Oracle
rounds this up to the next higher multiple of 128K, namely 512K.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Adams [mailto:steve.adams@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 16 September 2004 13:01
To: Paul.Vincent@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters
Hi Paul,
I've not been following this thread closely,
but from 8.0 onwards there is a MINIMUM
EXTENT size clause that can do this.
Oracle rounds all extent sizes up to a
multiple of the minimum specified during
tablespace creation.=20
@ Regards,
@ Steve Adams
@ http://www.ixora.com.au/ - For DBAs
@ http://www.christianity.net.au/ - For all=20
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Vincent
Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2004 9:23 PM
To: Oracle-L@Freelists. Org (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters
I'm afraid the mystery continues, then - all the db's tablespaces are
dictionary-managed.
Any more ideas, anyone?
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mercadante, Thomas F
Sent: 15 September 2004 15:00
To: Oracle-L@Freelists. Org (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters
I guess I left out the "locally managed" part! That is what I meant, of
course! :)
Tom Mercadante
Oracle Certified Professional
-----Original Message-----
From: Niall Litchfield [mailto:niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx]=3D20
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:58 AM
To: thomas.mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Paul.Vincent@xxxxxxxxx; Oracle-L@Freelists. Org (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters
Comments in line
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:57:31 -0400, Mercadante, Thomas F
<thomas.mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paul,
>=3D20
> 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=3D20
> storage param.
If only that were the case!=3D20
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.
--=3D20
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
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
