Is anyone using LMTSs? What is the largest number of extents that an object
has?
Notice any performance difference between LMTS and Locally managed
tablespaces??
Had any problems with LMTS?
Skip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Oracle DBA [SMTP:theoracledba_at_lycos.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 2:11 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Re: Locally managed tablespaces
>
> Has anyone taken a PROD DB and changed it to using LMTSs and then noticed
> a perf change + or -?
>
> ---
>
> TheOracleDBA
> theoracledba_at_lycos.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:30:29
> Bunyamin K.Karadeniz wrote:
> > But some had claimed that Locally managed tablespaces are slower. I
> do
> >not know if it is correct but you must consider it .
> > And I wonder the performance results too.
> >----- Original Message -----
> >To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 3:35 PM
> >
> >
> >> I have always been concerned with fragmentation of tablespaces, whether
> it
> >> be lots of extents, honeycomb or
> >> bubble fragmentation. Now I am reading that in Oracle 8i with the use
> of
> >> locally-managed table spaces,
> >> these concerns are a thing of the past as Oracle now uses bit maps
> within
> >> the tablespaces themselves to
> >> do space management. This seems foreign to me that even though Oracle
> will
> >> use up all the space in
> >> the tablespaces with no coalescing, it is OK that extents will go into
> >the
> >> thousands with no performance degradation.
> >> Could folks who are currently using locally managed tablespaces please
> >> comment on how well it
> >> is working for them and if they have experienced any problems in using
> >them.
> >> Thanks
> >> Skip
> >> Here is a good white paper on the subject.
> >> http://www.embarcadero.com/news/white_papers.htm
Received on Wed Jan 31 2001 - 07:09:54 CST
