Unanswered: small larger table space vs. higher number of smaller ts's.
can somebody please share your opinions on the topic of smaller number of larger tablesplaces vs. larger number of small tablespaces.
The root issue is next:
db. runs out of space 2 - 3 times a week. dba adds more space to tablespace but we still see shortages.
For the sake of discussion, I would like to omit space monitoring.
db runs SAN so all ts's are using the same set of drives and db. has 25 ts's.
Coming from SQL Server experience, I do not see need to have large number of smaller ts's., it only creates additional point of space shortage.
With smaller number of ts's, we can maintain larger free space margin and reduce chances of running out of space.
As far as maintenance goes, we whole weekend available for maintenance.
Set auto-extend on with a maximum size (if you want) then it will automatically increase by the amount you specify when it is needed. Also add a table space file or 2 and set them to the auto-extend also and the database will balance the usage and slowly increase them in size as it needs the space.
Last edited by beilstwh; 01-13-16 at 16:30.
You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.