SEO

#1 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 08:09 AM

9.2.0.5 Ent Ed.
I create a locally managed tablespace with uniform/manual extent
allocation set to 1M. Then I create an index or table in that LMT but
include a storage clause with initial set to 20M and next set to 1M.
Are these parameters ignored and instead the object has 1M extent
sizes? I believe I already know the answer, as I have done this and it
looks as though this is true, but I didn't understand why it would let
you set those values in the storage clause and then ignore them.

#2 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 08:09 AM

Ben wrote:
> 9.2.0.5 Ent Ed.
> I create a locally managed tablespace with uniform/manual extent
> allocation set to 1M. Then I create an index or table in that LMT but
> include a storage clause with initial set to 20M and next set to 1M.
> Are these parameters ignored and instead the object has 1M extent
> sizes? I believe I already know the answer, as I have done this and it
> looks as though this is true, but I didn't understand why it would let
> you set those values in the storage clause and then ignore them.

Yes. See
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p...D:409670433426
and poke around on dizwell.com for details.

They are there for historical/compatibility reasons.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/product...-red-hat_x.htm

#3 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 08:09 AM

Ben wrote:
> 9.2.0.5 Ent Ed.
> I create a locally managed tablespace with uniform/manual extent
> allocation set to 1M. Then I create an index or table in that LMT but
> include a storage clause with initial set to 20M and next set to 1M.
> Are these parameters ignored and instead the object has 1M extent
> sizes? I believe I already know the answer, as I have done this and it
> looks as though this is true, but I didn't understand why it would let
> you set those values in the storage clause and then ignore them.

The uniform extent size that you specified on the tablespace will
over-ride any initial or next specifications for indexes or tables
created or moved into the tablespace. This is very helpful for those
packaged applications that use 30 different storage clauses that do
nothing but cause fragmentation in the tablespace. Problems are fixed
automatically when an import is performed, or the table or index is
moved to the tablespace.

Charles Hooper
PC Support Specialist
K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.

#4 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 08:10 AM

"Ben" <balvey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1161980598.117535.230600@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> 9.2.0.5 Ent Ed.
> I create a locally managed tablespace with uniform/manual extent
> allocation set to 1M. Then I create an index or table in that LMT but
> include a storage clause with initial set to 20M and next set to 1M.
> Are these parameters ignored and instead the object has 1M extent
> sizes? I believe I already know the answer, as I have done this and it
> looks as though this is true, but I didn't understand why it would let
> you set those values in the storage clause and then ignore them.
>

Hi Ben

The storage parameters are not totally ignored, they're still used to
determine the initial size of the object, however this initial allocation of
storage is allocated in x number of uniform sized extents.

So in your example above, instead of having 1 x 20m extent, Oracle will
allocate 20 x 1M extents. Note next, minextents and pctincrease if specified
are also used to determine the initial storage allocation.

It lets you set those values not only for the above but also for backward
compatibility reasons.

Cheers

Richard

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

SEO

Do LMT's ignore initial & next parameters in the storage clause?