When using locally managed tablespace, you should not
have more extents than the number of extents that the
segment header can hold in 1 block.
For a 8K block you should not have more than 505
extents.
The main drawback I see with lmt using uniform extent
is if you want to change the extent size. You must
drop/recreate the tablespace or migrate it to
dictionnary managed ,make the change than migrate it
back to locally managed.
Also, If all your tbs are locally managed you must
have an online rollback segment in the system
tablespace before putting all the other rbs offline
(like in Oracle 7.1) .
- "Malkuns, Skip" <SMALKUNS_at_SYSTEMS.TEXTRON.com> a
écrit : > 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
> > >> --
> >
> --
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ:
> http://www.orafaq.com
> --
> Author: Malkuns, Skip
> INET: SMALKUNS_at_SYSTEMS.TEXTRON.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).
Stephane Paquette
DBA Oracle
stephane_paquette_at_yahoo.com
Received on Wed Jan 31 2001 - 07:59:15 CST
