Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

  • Congratulations Chris Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

RBS issue

Status
Not open for further replies.

gatetec

MIS
Mar 22, 2007
420
US
Currently we have some RBS with 5mg initial extents and some with 40mg initial extents.
What are the pros and cons if we recreate the smaller 5mg initial extents into 40mg extents?

thx
 
You'd waste a lot of space if you are only creating small tables there !

 
I think the norm these days is to create locally managed tablespaces which have all extents the same size. Don't bother putting extent sizes on the actual create table statements. Just have three tablespaces e.g. small_ts (extent size 0.25 meg), medium_ts (extent size 5 meg) and large_ts (extent size 40 meg). Pctincrease should always be zero. Then just put each table in the most appropriate tablespace.
 
As Dagon mentioned, Gatetec, Locally-Managed Tablespaces (LMT) are the norm, and they are soooo much more efficient and trouble free than using Dictionary-Managed Tablespaces (the old norm). By creating LMTs, there is no need to create the small, medium, and large tablespaces, and you will never again need to worry about "initial" and "next" extents.

Go for it! (You'll like it.)

[santa]Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
 
My question would be why are you working with rollback segments instead of automatic undo management?
 
Frankly, Jim, I still use rollback segments instead of automatic undo structures because I believe that I have more fine-grained control over those structures.

But that is my personal preference.

[santa]Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
 
And that is fair play Dave, however I would suggest that it goes against the norm to be using rbs in 9i> which is why I asked why the op was using rbs rather than telling him not to. If the op had replied that he was using rbs to give him a greater level of control over undo then fair play, my guess is that this is not the case however. (I could of course be in my default state of being wrong however :) )
 
JimIrvine said:
I could of course be in my default state of being wrong however :)
Frankly, Jim, I can't remember a time when I observed an "Irvine Error". <grin>

[santa]Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
 
LOL, too Kind Dave (You should have seen some of the c*** I was writing today at work [thumbsdown] :) )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top