Re: Import extent size problems

> It doesn't "ignore" the request for 67MB. It seeks to honour it,
> although it won't do it in the precise way the storage clause is
> demanding it.
>
> That is, if you've got INITIAL 67M, your table will be created with 67
> 1MB extents (or 134 512KB extents etc). You will thus get your 67MB,
> but not quite in the way you were expecting it.
>
> Locally managed tablespaces have always tried to 'honour in the
> intention' the iNITIAL clause; it's the NEXT they completely ignore!

Thats where my understanding went missing, as I thought it just ignored the entire storage clause on the table, but its makes sense that it doesn't.

> If you really and truly want to muck about with manipulating storage
> clauses (not a sensible option, but if you insist...) then do a Google
> Search for DataBee. Allows you to override storage clauses in a dump
> file without having to modify them in the source database.

It may not be sensible for production, but I am attempting to recreate a DEV copy of a terra byte+ database that contains only the lookup table data, all objects and stored procedures so I need to get the storage parameters down to a manageable size (over 600 tables in the schema at 50MB each = too big!). I will checkout DataBee and see what it can do for me!

Thanks,

Stephen. Received on Fri Aug 24 2007 - 04:01:49 CDT