40M initial extent?!!??

[chrisrlong]

Okay, so I'm working with a new client, and remember that the admin side is not my strong suit, but...

Amongst many other questionable settings, they have a 40M initial exten setting for their primary data tablespace. Actually, they have 2 primary tablespaces: a large and a small one - the large one has an initial extent of 100M!!!!

Am I fully showing my ignorance or is this truly insane? I mean, it *is* a DSS database, but there are still some little code tables with less than 100 records that are in a tablespace with an initial extent size of 40M!!

What could possibly be the reasoning behind such a thing?

Help!

- Chris

[marist89]

An initial extent of 40M is not unreasonable for a tablespace that will hold large objects. Code tables? Sounds like a waste to me. If they're worried about fragmentation, put the code tables in a seperate tablespace with more reasonable INITIAL and NEXT extents.

[pando]

Last time when I was working with this database configured by people from Accenture I saw initial of 250MB and next of 500MB in an oltp database Waste of space (even thought the hd are cheap this is bad waste!)

[tamilselvan]

In general, the next extent size should match the next 6 months data on that table.
The next extent size like 40MB / 250MB / 500MB is an estimation based on the past growth analysis.

[pando]

If I have a growth analysis I wouldnt even set next extent big I would simply create a big initial and set next equal to initial

[gsprince]

Could it be, they intended to create the smaller tables with the physical attributes specified explicitly. (say, Create table small_table bla bla STORAGE (INITIAL small_size) )