-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
-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
Ive read the book. PCTINCREASE is basically set to 100% so
the extent sizes double. Thats 'basically' how it works. I
have seen some posts on dejanews saying it doesnt necessarily
work this way and some people are finding large extent sizes
with just a few extents and when tables 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
