Re: number of extents question

Hi Jan,

My personal rule of thumb with dictionary managed tablespaces was to try and keep to the one extent list when determining numbers of extents (or the default maxextents value dependent on block size). That way you only have the one extent list to contend with and the number of extents is manageable and not overly burdensome on the DD.

Therefore with the 1000 extent object, yes I would consider a reorg. Note though that the cost of such a reorg and its benefits still need to be considered.

As mentioned previously, if on 8i, consider LMTs.

Cheers

Richard
"Jan Gelbrich" <j_gelbrich_at_westfalen-blatt.de> wrote in message news:alnhup$1rrr6j$1_at_ID-152732.news.dfncis.de...
> Thank You, Richard, for Your input.
>
> Now, there is one more detail I would like to ask:
>
> "Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:x9wf9.29168$g9.83917_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> > Option 2.
> ...
>
>
> > One last point. Having one large extent may very well be the *worst*
 value
> > to set a table to with respect to performance.
>
> I do agree at once with this if it comes to very large tables of several
 GB.
>
> Now, I do not have many big tables -
> most of them are around 10-30MB, only one is 200MB and one is 1GB, in a
> special TS; all TS are dictionary managed.
> I inherited the db from former specialists, and the management has a quite
> conservative attitude what schema objects we use.
> So we do not have any partitioning (due to exp limitations),
> no LOBs or Object Types, no Java, just PL/SQL and Forms/Reports in a C/S
> environment.
>
> The 1GB table has 40 extents, the one with 200MB has 25.
> Would You do something about it at all ?
>
> Some smaller indices with very small INITIALs have some 1000 extents. I
> would reorganize them into one bigger extent.
> Would You ?
>
> I would be glad to hear from You. Jan
>
>
Received on Thu Sep 12 2002 - 02:20:45 CDT