Jack,

I've got no experience with out-of-line CLOB segments, so I don't know
if that changes how the drop would work.

As for the maximum number of extents, that's what I was told. Not that
it was necessarily "don't ever do that", just something to think about.

Rachel
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Rachel,
> 
> At a recent past job, under 8.1.6 on Win2k we had tables with
> out-of-line
> CLOB segments of 30,000 extents (1MB each).  Every month we dropped
> one to
> make room for another (6 months of CLOB documents online).  It always
> just
> took a few seconds for the drop.  These were in DMTs.
> 
> Later we switched servers and I changed to LMTs of 100MB Uniform
> Extents
> for the CLOB segments.  Going from 30,000 to 300 extents for those
> hulks
> made no noticeable difference in query or interMedia indexing
> performance,
> nor did it noticeably change the time it took to drop the tables.
> 
> Here at AISD, our student information database (SASI, for those in
> Education who know this 3rd party app) has over 47,000 tables and
> 70,000
> indexes (typical abysmal design for a 3rd party app, eh?), many of
> them
> empty or with very few rows.  A few months ago I rebuilt it under
> 8.1.7.4.6
> (Win2k - it was previously at 8.1.7.0.0) with LMTs of 8KB Uniform
> Extents
> to save space.  Surprisingly, only 40 or so segments have over 1000
> extents.  One, a consolidated Student table, has a little over 10,000
> extents.  We've noticed no problem at all with performance, etc.
> 
> I've not been concerned about extent counts for several years now,
> and I've
> seen nothing convincing that I should be.  Maybe I've just not hit
> the
> situation where it matters.  That is not to say that extents don't
> matter,
> but it's only if they obey the stupid directives of uninformed
> duhvelopers,
> such as those of our 3rd party Financials system, where they used
> PctIncrease of 50.  Like children and dogs, there are no bad extents,
> just
> bad designers.    ;-)
> 
> Jack C. Applewhite
> Database Administrator
> Austin Independent School District
> Austin, Texas
> 512.414.9715 (wk)
> 512.935.5929 (pager)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                      
>                                      
>                       Rachel Carmichael                              
>                                      
>                       <[EMAIL PROTECTED]        To:       Multiple
> recipients of list ORACLE-L              
>                       o.com>                   
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>                                     
>                       Sent by:                 cc:                   
>                                      
>                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]         Subject:  Re:
> Autoallocate vs Uniform extent performance    
>                                                                      
>                                      
>                                                                      
>                                      
>                       04/04/2003 07:01                               
>                                      
>                       AM                                             
>                                      
>                       Please respond to                              
>                                      
>                       ORACLE-L                                       
>                                      
>                                                                      
>                                      
>                                                                      
>                                      
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rumor hath it (as I've never actually had an object hit that high a
> number) that when you exceed 4K extents it's time to resize. This
> came
> from one of the instructors in Oracle University, one who is
> well-known
> to actually have more than a clue. He said this at the Data Internals
> class, before 9i was released.
> 
> I have not seen his test results but.... I do know that tests done
> with
> DMTs have shown that large numbers of extents (I believe Kevin Loney
> tested with 60K extents, and I vaguely remember a conversation with
> Cary where he said he had also tested large numbers)  are a problem
> during operations that empty a lot of extents (think large deletes)
> because of thrashing on FET$ and UET$. Since an LMT doesn't access
> those tables by design, I would think that that problem goes away.
> --
> Author: Rachel Carmichael
>   INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
> -- 
> Author: 
>   INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
> San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
> to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
> also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Rachel Carmichael
  INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).

Reply via email to