Re: Locally managed tablespaces

Is there really any considerable overhead involved in dynamically allocating an extent? By creating free space chunks in a tablespace of uniform extent size, will you really reduce the amount of time and resources spent when a segment allocates those extents?

I doubt it, but statistics from v$sesstat could convince me otherwise.

--
Jeremiah Wilton
http://www.speakeasy.net/~jwilton

On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Don Granaman wrote:



> If you are using uniform extents in LMT, you don't want to coalesce

> - ever.  Since every extent will be the same size, it is useless

> overhead.  This is even more true if you have adopted a "uniform

> extents" policy in any dictionary managed tablespaces.  In fact, to

> reduce the overhead of throwing a new extent in the latter, you

> might try "pre-fragmenting" the tablespace by creating a junk table

> in it and manually allocating new extents, then dropping the table -

> during a low activity period of course.


-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Jeremiah Wilton
  INET: jwilton_at_speakeasy.net

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).