Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: Locally Managed Tablespaces
I'll be happy with auto when Oracle publish the extent size algorithm.
Sure we can work it out roughly - but if its not published, then by definition, its impossible to guarantee that a tablespace has sufficient space for a segment to extend.
eg lets say Oracle change their algorithm to skip the 8m extent size, so it goes 64k,1m,64m. You might have a tablespace with 60M free space in it, and you'll happily be thinking "yep, that one is ok" and then BAMM! Users start getting 'unable to extend errors'
Cheers
Connor
> I do not overly worry about the number of extents either - at least not
> as long as I can grasp them with one look without having to divide them
> into groups of 3. What I do worry about is the rate at which extents get
> added and if you have transaction tables (as opposed to more static
> setup or warehouse type tables) you likely have a growth pattern which
> is correlated to the size (or probably more accurately vice versa). I
> like to size the uniform extents such that a growing table adds between
> 1-30 extents per month (anywhere between once a month and once a day,
> although the latter is already too much for my liking).
>
> I'll have to read that ask tom link.
>
> Niall Litchfield wrote:
>
> >
> > I guess my bias is that I really, really don't care how many extents
> > my segment has (at least if I did have tens of thousands i'd be
> > worrying about partitioning instead) and so I see no reason to use
> > auto.
> >
> --
> Regards
>
> Wolfgang Breitling
> Centrex Consulting Corporation
> www.centrexcc.com
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
Coming Soon! "Oracle Insight - Tales of the OakTable"
"GIVE a man a fish and he will eat for a day. But TEACH him how to fish, and...he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day"
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu Jan 20 2005 - 20:54:49 CST
![]() |
![]() |