RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters

From: Mercadante, Thomas F <thomas.mercadante_at_labor.state.ny.us>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:57:31 -0400
Message-ID: <C9995D8C5E0DDA4A8FF9D68EE666CE07A7F86C@exchsen0a1ma>

Paul,

Check the storage params on the tablespace. Could be that the initial extent for the tbs is 512k. I think this would trump the table storage param.

Tom Mercadante
Oracle Certified Professional

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

From: Paul Vincent [mailto:Paul.Vincent_at_uce.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 2:46 AM To: Oracle-L_at_Freelists. Org (E-mail)
Subject: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters

I just spotted something puzzling. I was checking the sizing of some Oracle 8i tables, using TOAD's Schema Browser. There are tables and indexes which have initial and next extent sizes of 409600 (400K), have only a single extent, yet the "Size in bytes" is given as 524288 (512K). The db_block_size is 8192 (8K), and 400K is a multiple of 8K, so why do the storage parameters for these objects appear to have been ignored? Any ideas?

Paul Vincent
Database Administrator
University of Central England
--

http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--

http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Wed Sep 15 2004 - 06:53:07 CDT