Re: Tablespaces structure question!

Sybrand Bakker wrote:

> 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

Thanks a lot Sybrand. It does help.

Tapan Received on Mon Apr 24 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT