-Original Message-
From: Jesse, Rich
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:49 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: locally managed autoallocate (was: Separate Indexes and
Data)
Theoritically, perhaps, but what if an existing table needs
to auto-extend
(was: Separate Indexes and
Data)
-Original Message-
From: Jesse, Rich
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:49 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: locally managed autoallocate (was: Separate
Indexes and
Data)
Theoritically, perhaps, but what
Actually, 5 blocks wasn't completely hardwired, there was an undocumented
parameter (_walk_insert_threshold or something like that. My notes from
Scott Gosset's course are largely unreadable. What has hapened to my
handwriting? ) which was utilized to define the number of blocks that will be
5 is the number of blocks (probably defined in a header file) that is gotten
for creation.
it could be that the blocksize matters, but haven't seen it any other way
than 5.
after that, the HWM is bumped with 5 blocks too
(_bump_highwater_mark_count)
_walk_insert_threshold is the number of blocks
Btw, I did some testing on ASSM (9.2.0.4) a while ago and it seems there is
only 2 blocks required for ASSM when talking about small number of 5 block
extents. 2 for ASSM + one for header and rest two get formatted for data
when first row is inserted into table (using conventional mode, when doing
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Kilchoer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:34 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: locally managed autoallocate (was: Separate Indexes and Data)
Ive read the book. PCTINCREASE is basically set to 100%
-Original Message-
From: Jesse, Rich
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:49 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: locally managed autoallocate (was: Separate Indexes and
Data)
Theoritically, perhaps, but what if an existing table needs
to auto-extend
at 1M
Hi!
I think 5 blocks was the minimum extent size despite any parameters in
Oracle 7 (and all allocations were rounded to multiple of 5 blocks).
The parameter _bump_highwarer_mark_count (which defaults to 5), specifies
how many new blocks above HWM are put onto freelist when new free blocks are
Yes, and there is one thing to add:
If you do not specify INTIAL, the extent allocation starts with 5 blocks for
the intial extent. For 8k, it's 40k, but in an autoallocating LMT extent
cannot be smaller then 64k, so it is the amount of the space allocated. The
interesting question is: what
However, I get a different result:
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 Linux: Version 9.2.0.1.0 - Production
NLSRTL Version 9.2.0.1.0 - Production
5 rows selected.
SQL
SQL CREATE TABLESPACE
At 06:29 PM 9/30/2003 -0800, I wrote:
So the 1M initial extent allocation is not due to a 5 block minimum
allocation rule but due to the fact that automatic space management
requires 3 blocks plus 1 block for the segment header plus 1 block for
actual data = 5 blocks, which lifts the request
On 2003.09.30 22:29, Wolfgang Breitling wrote:
However, I get a different result:
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 Linux: Version 9.2.0.1.0 - Production
NLSRTL Version 9.2.0.1.0 - Production
I can't recall right now where I found out about the 3 blocks required for
automatic space management. Could have been an error message when I tried
to create a table with a 2 block extent in an ASSM tablespace, or a
presentation at IOUG, or perhaps even on this list.
The 5 block rule is the
13 matches
Mail list logo
