RE: Index Rebuilds and Extents

Lisa,

I'd go for uniform extents for the index tablespace(s) and not bother with a storage clause.

George

> -----Original Message-----
> From: <Lisa_Koivu_at_gelco.com> [mailto:Lisa_Koivu_at_gelco.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 5:28 PM
> To: smtp_at_inl001@servers["Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L"
> <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>]
> Subject: Index Rebuilds and Extents
>
>
> Hello everyone, happy Friday!
>
> I am overhauling an index rebuild script. The indexes in
> this script are
> dropped and rebuilt nightly. Yesterday when I was revisiting
> storage, my goal
> was to see if I could get the minimum number of extents
> possible when rebuilding
> each index, so I re-set my initial extent size to be large
> enough, in some cases
> 150M (non partitioned). However after doing so I began to
> wonder, am I
> exacerbating fragmentation by doing this? Even if each
> index is dropped and
> rebuilt nightly?
>
> So here's my question to you:
>
> What's better: Having an index all in one extent or having
> uniform extents in
> the tablespace that the indexes reside in? After thinking
> about it I'm
> beginning to lean toward uniform extents.
>
> Your input is appreciated.
> Thanks
> Lisa
>
>
>
> --
> Author:
> INET: Lisa_Koivu_at_gelco.com
>
> Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
> San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
> to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
> also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Received on Mon May 08 2000 - 03:47:16 CDT