-
, Sreddy, Pando, sambavan, etc......
I am interested in your take on this one, and I'm growing impatient waiting for you all to chime in
http://www.dbasupport.com/forums/sho...threadid=12430
- Chris
-
-
Originally posted by chrisrlong
, Sreddy, Pando, sambavan, etc......
I am interested in your take on this one, and I'm growing impatient waiting for you all to chime in
- Chris
This is one of those questions that dosn't have a correct answer.
Jeff Hunter
-
*Gasp*
Did I just get classified with those 'moderator' and 'advisor' types? I'm honored!
Most of the time, I like to use locally managed tablespaces
with uniform extent sizes so I can forget about this endless
debate. ;-)
That said, when I *have* to use dictionary managed
tablespaces....
I like to keep pctincrease=1 on my tablespaces so SMON works on them from time to time, and I keep a watch out for new objects so I can make sure their pctincrease is always set to 0. Now, if I know that developers are going to be building objects and they can't give me any good ideas about their growth rates, I might set the pctincrease to 50 so the objects grow pretty quick.
Really I think the whole thing is a matter of preference. Sometimes I make pctincrease=0 and set up a dbms_job
to periodically coalesce all the tablespaces (except temp
and rbs, of course!)
-John
-
what is the point coalescing if your extent sizes are the same?
-
Pando,
Just becuase I make pctincrease =0 does not mean that
my extent sizes are the same. If they were, I wouldn't
coalesce. Sometimes developers use storage clauses!
-John
-
Yes but if you use minimum extent clause when you create your tablespaces no matter the developers put in the storage the extent size would be multiple of that minimum extent we defined at tablespace level!
-
That's true, but it isn't always practical to set it at a value
that will keep tablespaces pretty but not use a lot of extra
disk space.
I have to support an application that insists that all tables exist in one tablespace and all indexes in another tablespace.
If they don't, it isn't able to upgrade itself properly (which happens maybe every 6 months). It's a stupid design, I know. The app shouldn't care where the objects are.
The application has about 1500 tables ranging from 16K up to 1.1Gb. It has about 7000 indexes on those tables. Becuase of the app, I am forced to work with this, and fragmentation is bad. So I coalesce, and do some manual reorging when I have to.
-John
-
Let's change a bit topic ;D
How does coalesce enhance perfomance? So far I have never noticed any perfomance improvements when I coalesce a tablespace, well not only me several guys I know also told me the samething. The only purpose of coalescing is to reuse space AFAIK but has nothing to do with perfomance
-
I agree, it doesn't do anything for performance. It just helps space management.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|