RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters

I guess I left out the "locally managed" part! That is what I meant, of course! :)

Tom Mercadante
Oracle Certified Professional

-----Original Message-----
From: Niall Litchfield [mailto:niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:58 AM To: thomas.mercadante_at_labor.state.ny.us
Cc: Paul.Vincent_at_uce.ac.uk; Oracle-L_at_Freelists. Org (E-mail) Subject: Re: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters

Comments in line
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:57:31 -0400, Mercadante, Thomas F <thomas.mercadante_at_labor.state.ny.us> wrote:
> 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.

If only that were the case!

object storage takes precedence over the tablespace clause (which if you think about it just defines a default value for new objects) for traditional tablespaces.

There is a rather important change though for locally managed tablespaces where the object clauses are [1] ignored. I'd hazard a guess then that Paul has a locally managed tablespace with uniform extent management and a uniform size of 512k.

-- 
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com

[1] Strictly they are not *ignored* at creation since the requested initial
size for the object *determines* how many extents are initially allocated.
The extents follow the tablespace policy though. So in Paul's case I would
expect a new object with initial and next of  800k to get two extents on
creation each of 512k - requested more than 512k therefore need 2 extents.
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l