Re: Looking for a good way to convert from dictionnary manged TBS to Locally managed ones

"Tom Barnes" <nospam1978_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5af28966.0403200815.1a800e91_at_posting.google.com...
> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message
news:<405a78c3$0$8355$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > It's been discussed here quite recently, with Richard Foote posting an
> > interesting test demonstrating that autoallocate is extremely difficult
to
> > fragment, and is extremely smart about the way it allocates space to
> > objects. I'm sure you could hunt for it on Google. It would be within
the
> > last two months.
>
> I believe this is the thread you're referring to:
>

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=4017cf50.436085858%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DSpace%2BUsage%2BQuestion%2Bgroup:comp.databases.oracle.server%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dcomp.databases.oracle.server%26selm%3D4017cf50.436085858%2540news.demon.co.uk%26rnum%3D1
>
> (or just search for 'Space Usage Question')
>
> The conclusion however seems to be that using auto-allocate can result
> in fragmentation so sticking to ULMTs might be best?!

Well, that might be your interpretation. My conclusion from it was that autoallocated LMTs are extremely difficult to fragment, manage space rather intelligently, and -because they free the DBA up from worrying *at all* about segment storage issues- are thoroughly recommended.

Uniform LMTs will 100% eliminate fragmentation, true. And I won't dissuade someone from using them. But one can then embark upon a long discussion about what set of "appropriate" extent sizes should be used when creating them. Which means having to think about storage issues... which is kind of old-fashioned!

Regards
HJR Received on Sat Mar 20 2004 - 14:49:03 CST