Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Truncate changes NEXT allocation?
On Wed, 12 May 1999 21:51:25 +1000, "Nuno Souto"
<nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>As the title says.
>
>Someone I know maintains this is true. I've tried it and it doesn't.
>Is there any version of ORACLE where this may happen?
>
>Basically, if a table has eg INITIAL 1M NEXT 1M, then you
>change via ALTER to NEXT 10M, this guy maintains that
>a truncate will reset NEXT to 1M. I've verified that
>in normal conditions it doesn't, so I need to know of any
>"abnormals", if any.
>
>TIA for any info on this. Go via e-mail if your newsfeed
>is not very reliable, I find it easier.
IMHO none of the previous answers explains exactly how TRUNCATES behaves regarding the setting of the NEXT storage parameter after truncating the segment. And yet, it is clearelly stated in the SQL Reference Manual (describing command TRUNCATE):
<quote>
Note: When you truncate a table, the storage parameter NEXT is
changed to be the size of the last extent deleted from the segment
in the process of truncation.
</quote>
You must read the above note very carefully to see that the TRUNCATE behaves exactly as described. Here are some example scenarios:
>--
>Cheers
>Nuno Souto
>nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au
>http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm
HTH,
Jurij Modic <jmodic_at_src.si>
Certified Oracle7 DBA (OCP)
![]() |
![]() |