RE: segment fragmentation

From: Bobak, Mark <Mark.Bobak_at_il.proquest.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 02:15:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4C9B6FDA0B06FE4DAF5918BBF0AD82CF09EFEB48@bosmail00.bos.il.pqe>

Thanks for the correction on alter table move. Oracle 8, not 9i! I = don't
know what I was thinking.

As to statistics treatment, that's a good point too. I no longer have = any 8.0 databases to test with, but in my humble opinion, the 9i = behavior of=20
the deletion of statistics is the correct thing to do. Once the table = has=20
been rebuilt, the statistics are (likely to) vary significantly from = reality.

-Mark

-----Original Message-----

From:	oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org on behalf of Wolfgang Breitling
Sent:	Wed 9/8/2004 7:49 PM
To:	oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Cc:=09
Subject:	RE: segment fragmentation

Excellent point about the statistics. I recently discovered that alter=20 table move in Oracle 9 (9.2.0.5) seems to delete the statistics. I do = not=20
recall that from Oracle 8.

At 05:26 PM 9/8/2004, Reardon, Bruce (CALBBAY) wrote:
>Also, something others may know but I ran into recently.
>When you move a table, posts normally point out that indexes will need =
=3D
>to be rebuilt (as the post below does).
>You also need to recreate statistics (by your method of preference - =
=3D
>dbms_stats gathering, analyze or dbms_stats setting) on the table and =
=3D
>indexes.
>HTH,
>Bruce Reardon

Regards

Wolfgang Breitling
Centrex Consulting Corporation
www.centrexcc.com=20

--
To unsubscribe - =
mailto:oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org&subject=3Dunsubscribe=20
To search the archives - http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/


--
To unsubscribe - mailto:oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org&subject=unsubscribe 
To search the archives - http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/

Received on Thu Sep 09 2004 - 01:10:44 CDT