Re: LMT is preferred than DMT.. but then

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:39:23 +1000
Message-ID: <4067a880$0$32668$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1080531957.872546_at_yasure...
> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
> > The big benefit of LMTs, and the reason why, over time, you should
indeed
> > slowly migrate toward them, is that they free the DBA up from worrying
about
> > the number of extents, and the size of those extents. That's all. It's a
> > convenience thing. not a measurable-performance thing.
>
> > Regards
> > HJR
>
> From where I stand ... the huge value of LMTs is contained in two
> words: UNIFORM SIZE
>
> The end of export-import to deal with tablespace fragmentation.
> And yes I know it isn't necessary in the abstract. But it sure is
> in the real world.

I think you are merely selling LMTs short in that case.

There is *nothing* in the LMT technology that mandates uniform size in preference to autoallocate.

Tablespace fragmentation is dealt with very effectively by autoallocate. Non-contention on the data dictionary is also common to autoallocate and uniform size. And the issue of extent numbers being irrelevant is also common to autoallocate and uniform size.

Regards
HJR Received on Sun Mar 28 2004 - 22:39:23 CST