Gene,
a shot-in-the-darkis your 'minimum extent' size
set to 24K..? That is the only other thing that comes
to my mind
Cheers,
RS
--- Gene Gurevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> I'm not even sure what is the uniform extents (are
> you
> talking about the LMTS?). So I think the ans
Dennis,
I'm not even sure what is the uniform extents (are you
talking about the LMTS?). So I think the answer is no
Gene
--- DENNIS WILLIAMS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gene - Are you using uniform extents by any chance?
> Just thought it wouldn't
> hurt to ask.
> Dennis Williams
> DBA
> Lifet
Gene - Are you using uniform extents by any chance? Just thought it wouldn't
hurt to ask.
Dennis Williams
DBA
Lifetouch, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:51 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Deepak,
thanks for the input. I have doub
Deepak,
thanks for the input. I have double-checked the
pctincrease and it is set to 0 on all tables in my
schema. Regarding the rounding up of the number of
blocks, that would have explained if the extents were
larger than my next extents size. As it now, my block
size is 8K. The next extent - 5
check the value of pctincrease for your table from
user_tables/dba_tables. note that the default
pctincrease for tablespace is 50. my guess pctincrease
value fo your table is non-zero
alternatively, the size might be attributed to the
fact that oracle rounds the number of blocks that make
up the
Hi.
I have two tables in my database. They both have
the NEXT_EXTENT set to 512K for a long time. Yet
all the extents for these tables are either 16
or 24K. I have checked the next extent sessing once
and again and it has always shown 512K. The tables
are not being truncated. Why would Oracle cre
