|
I generally add about 33% to the size of
the uncompressed export. This gives
me some idea how much space it may take.
Of course, this depends on how many indexes (as they are not stored in
export) and storage parameters on the database. You could always ask them to give you an
idea (perhaps give them a query to run before exporting) of he size of the data
and indexes. "Do not criticize someone until you walked a
mile in their shoes, that way when you criticize them, you are a mile a way and
have their shoes." Christopher R. Spence Fuelspot -----Original Message----- Hi list, I need some opinions about following question.
I have a developer box with about 20 schemas.
Sometimes our customers send us a export of there data which I had to import
into our develop instance. My problem is that I don't now how much space I need
for those imports. My solution is to create tablespaces with about 50 MB and
set autoextent on (localy managed). I import the customers data first time and
tablespace may use 200 mb. After some weeks I get the next export. After
import, tablespace growth to 300 mb. So now my question, is it better to create a large
tablespace, because of continouges db and hdd blocks, or does this have no
influence or small influence on performance. I prefer to build small
tablespaces with limited autoextent option. Reason is, that my cold backups
were quicker, cause I do not have to reserve a lot of unused space for my
tablespaces. I have databases on Suse Linux, NT4 and W2K. This
question is for all platform. If there are some platform specific issues,
please let me know. Hope you understand my question. TIA Volker Schoen
|
Title: Q about autoextent tablespaces and performance
- Q about autoextent tablespaces and performance Schoen Volker
- Re: Q about autoextent tablespaces and performance Connor McDonald
- RE: Q about autoextent tablespaces and performance Christopher Spence
- RE: Q about autoextent tablespaces and performance Christopher Spence
