-Original Message-
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:15 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Yes, it is fixed in 9.2.0
Hemant
At 04:25 AM 02-06-03 -0800, you wrote:
Hope it's fixed in 9iR2 !
Jp.
2003/06/02 20:54:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cannot create lob columns if segment
Oracle 9i release 2 new feature ( from the admin guide )
Removal of LOB Column Restriction:
You can now create LOB columns in tablespaces that specify automatic
segment-space management.
Before release 2 There were some bugs with Auto Segment Space Mgmt and LOB
type fields
- Original
Yes, it is fixed in 9.2.0
Hemant
At 04:25 AM 02-06-03 -0800, you wrote:
Hope it's fixed in 9iR2 !
Jp.
2003/06/02 20:54:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cannot create lob columns if segment space management is set to auto.
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author:
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 9:54 PM
Cannot create lob columns if segment space management is set to auto.
Why not ?
SQL create tablespace new datafile 'c:\bowie\new01.dbf' reuse
2 segment space
SQL select * from v$version;
BANNER
Oracle9i Enterprise Edition Release 9.2.0.1.0 - Production
PL/SQL Release 9.2.0.1.0 - Production
CORE9.2.0.1.0 Production
TNS for 32-bit Windows: Version 9.2.0.1.0 - Production
NLSRTL
Cannot create lob columns if segment space management is set to auto.
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 00:55
After reading the documents I've recommended using LOCAL, UNIFORM, AUTO as
the options for
Title: RE: Tablespace management.
_what_ ??
bulbul, can you please elaborate on your statement?
Raj
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot com
All Views expressed in this email are strictly personal.
QOTD
Hope it's fixed in 9iR2 !
Jp.
2003/06/02 20:54:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cannot create lob columns if segment space management is set to auto.
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author: Prem Khanna J
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cary Millsap
Sent: 30 May 2003 17:55
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: Tablespace management.
Wow.
Maybe someone on the list has the time and motive to
construct a test to determine how
:RE: Tablespace management.
Thomas,
With the exception of temp and
rollback tablespaces I
have not user locally managed tablespaces just
because all objects must
have the same sized extents. I do not see most
tables sharing an equal
need for storage
of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: Tablespace management.
Thomas,
With the exception of temp and rollback tablespaces I
have not user locally managed tablespaces just because all objects must
have the same sized extents. I do not see most
:
Subject:RE: Tablespace management.
Thomas,
With the exception of temp and rollback tablespaces I
have not user locally managed tablespaces just because all objects must
have the same sized extents. I do not see most tables sharing an equal
need for storage and using
in that.
Jared
Goulet, Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/29/2003 03:51 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: Tablespace management.
Thomas
So what is wrong with having the SLOTS table occupy several hundred
extents? If it grows to 500MB it will occupy 1000 extents, so what. If it
were to grow into GB I'd probably make the extents 1MB and swallow the
wasted .5M in the CELL extent - what is half a meg when you're in the GB.
As for
a single extent, and there's not much point in that.
Jared
Goulet, Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/29/2003 03:51 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: Tablespace
]
cc:
Subject:RE: Tablespace management.
Thomas,
With the exception of temp and rollback tablespaces I
have not user locally managed tablespaces just because all objects must
have the same sized extents. I do not see most tables sharing an equal
need
PROTECTED]
05/29/2003 03:51 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: Tablespace management.
Thomas,
With the exception of temp and rollback tablespaces I
have
with contention on FET$ and UET$ in dictionary
managed tablespaces for a transaction database?
or am I just wrong?
From: Cary Millsap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2003/05/30 Fri PM 12:55:06 EDT
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Tablespace management.
Wow
PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/29/2003 03:51 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: Tablespace management.
Thomas,
With the exception of temp
What Oracle documentation would that be?
At 09:39 AM 5/30/2003 -0800, you wrote:
i read some oracle documentation that recommends you keep the number of
extents below 1024.
do you feel that this is inaccurate in an LMT? What if Im stuck with
dictionary tablespacse and am not allowed to change?
, and there's not much point in that.
Jared
Goulet, Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/29/2003 03:51 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: Tablespace management
: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:15 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: RE: Tablespace management.
What Oracle documentation would that be?
At 09:39 AM 5/30/2003 -0800, you wrote:
i read some oracle documentation that recommends you keep
the number of
extents below 1024.
do
To quote the paper:
Oracle supports an unlimited number of extents in a segment. The
performance for DML operations is largely independent
of the number of extents in the segment. However, certain DDL operations
such as dropping and truncating of segments are
sensitive to the number of extents.
-Original Message-
From: Wolfgang Breitling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 4:00 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: RE: Tablespace management.
To quote the paper:
Oracle supports an unlimited number of extents in a segment. The
performance
.
Goulet, Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/30/2003 10:39 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: Tablespace management.
Steve,
I'm not sure I'd call all
Thomas - Oracle recommended Local and Uniform, so that is what I use for
everything. It has worked out great. I even use autoextend and that hasn't
bitten me but a couple of times. This is on 8.1.6 and 9.2.
Dennis Williams
DBA, 80%OCP, 100% DBA
Lifetouch, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original
Thomas,
With the exception of temp and rollback tablespaces I have not user locally
managed tablespaces just because all objects must have the same sized extents. I do
not see most tables sharing an equal need for storage and using dictionary management
allows one to do that, at a
in that.
Jared
Goulet, Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/29/2003 03:51 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: Tablespace management.
Thomas
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: Tablespace management.
Thomas,
With the exception of temp and rollback tablespaces I
have not user locally managed tablespaces just because all objects must
have the same
Dick,
Have you considered the size and placement of the tables in like LMT's
to allow the planned use of equal extents?
I use LMT's and have set my own sizeing to the sizes of the tables and
the table activity. Some LMT's are 4K for small tables and others are
40M for large tables. When I look
30 matches
Mail list logo
