Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters

RE: Relating actual object size to Storage parameters

From: Paul Vincent <Paul.Vincent_at_uce.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:22:33 +0100
Message-ID: <14C5F9616FF43F479F67E41A1DF4D94A050FE9C9@exchangeb.staff.uce.ac.uk>


I'm afraid the mystery continues, then - all the db's tablespaces are dictionary-managed.

Any more ideas, anyone?

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of Mercadante, Thomas F Sent: 15 September 2004 15:00
To: Oracle-L_at_Freelists. Org (E-mail)
Subject: 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]=20 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,

>=20
> 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=20
> storage param.

If only that were the case!=20

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.

--=20
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

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Thu Sep 16 2004 - 06:30:07 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US