Re: Tablespaces structure question!

ttrivedi <ttrivedi_at_deja.com> schreef in berichtnieuws 3904AF70.B5F65BCE_at_deja.com...
> Hey Gurus,
>
> Hi. I have a question which , if answered, might help me clear off some
> mud in my head.
> At my present client we have a tablespace structure which comprises of
> at present
> each table in its own tablespace. Yes I typed it correctly each table in
> its own tablespace.
> What problems ,if any ,do you guys foresee for this type of
> architecture. One of the suggestions
> that we have is to have a tablespace structure which elevates the tables
> as and when they grow.
> Like we have three tablespaces for the application which are small_tbs,
> medium_tbs and large_tbs.
> When the table grows beyond a certain point we move it to the medium and
> ultimately the large_tbs.
> What do you guys think of the same ?
>
> Any questions, comments, outbursts , epiphanies would be welcome.
>
>
>
> Tapan
>

each table in its own tablespace. Yes I typed it correctly each table in
> its own tablespace.
> What problems ,if any ,do you guys foresee for this type of
> architecture.

You'll run out of datafiles, there's a maximum you or someone else specified at database creation usually 254. This means you can have about 254 tables :)
For the least space management issues the idea of having three different type of tablespaces seems to work good, provided you don't specify storage clauses on object level. Everything is handled by the default storage clause of the tablespace.
Technet.oracle.com should have a white paper called 'Space: the final frontier'.

Hth,
Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA Received on Mon Apr 24 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT