-
I was browsing around and read through http://www.oracle.com/oramag/oracle/00-nov/o60o8i.html , and article about Locally Mangaged tablespaces.
Has anyone had any experiences using them? Good? Bad? Ugly? I think I might try using some, for temp at first as suggested, then maybe some application tablespaces. Even my "production" database is really just for a small development project so as long as I can recover from something that goes wrong I'm ok.
Just curious if anyone had positive/negative feedback on the subject.
-
The locally managed tbs would help in the performance boost. When you get to allow the table spaces to be managed in the data dictionary, the read and write level goes up, b/c they first have to locate in the data dictionary and then perform the operation. On the other hand the locally managed tbs over comes this issue and it helps to an extent in boosting the performance.
Sam
-
I too have been contemplating using locally managed tablespaces for a while. I am still undecided as to the benefits in the TEMP and RBS type tablespaces since those are already managed. However, I think it will help in the DATA type tablespaces. Since most OLTP systems have a variety of table sizes, I was thinking about having multiple locally managed tablespaces for my data segments; DATA_SMALL (1M), DATA_MEDIUM(64M), and DATA_LARGE (512M).
I know the CW is that the number of extents is irrelvent, but putting 120 Million rows into 64K extents just doesn't make sense to me.
-
There is a link off that article to another article which I thought was a worthwhile read about extent sizing to eliminate fragmentaion. It gives rules of thumb for extent sizing based on segment sizes, and more insight into how to manage space in general.
http://metalink.oracle.com/cgi-bin/c..._cr.cgi?239049
