| Does the local tablespace lead to fragmentation of large segments? [message #58483] |
Mon, 01 September 2003 07:43  |
Andrey
Messages: 21
Registered: January 1999
|
Junior Member |
|
|
|
How good is the local tablespace with autoallocate option for small and large segments simultaneously in comparison with tablespace with dictionary control where I can adjust space for every segment as I need? Default value of initial extent 64K for all objects in local tablespace will lead to strong fragmentation of large segments(tables, indexes), isn't it? I can of cause adjust initial extent value, but for all segments of this tablespace! Therefore, small tables will occupy at once a redundant space and large objects will be fragmented?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the local tablespace lead to fragmentation of large segments? [message #58488 is a reply to message #58483] |
Tue, 02 September 2003 17:15  |
Todd Barry
Messages: 4819
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Fragmentation is when you have lots of irregular holes in a tablespace - it has nothing to do with the number of extents.
Since the extent sizes in a LMT with autoallocate are all multiples (64K, 1M, 8M, etc.) of each other, it is impossible to end up with irregular chunks of free space.
Fragmentation is a non-issue with LMTs (autoallocate or uniform).
|
|
|
|
] 
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
