Re: extent size of the table

I am just thinking the three additional bytes are probably the null terminators for the three strings in the index. Arun RAMA G.MEKALA wrote: > Hi All ! > > <snip> > > index size for the followin table = (10+9+4)+8+25%overhead is comes to 37. > > any suggestions please.. > > thanks in advance > Rama > > { TABLE "crs".unvalidated_t_trn row size = 124 number of columns = 7 index > size= 40 } > > create table "crs".unvalidated_t_trn > ( > nbr_crs_control char(10) not null, > nbr_trn char(9) not null, > nbr_branch char(4) not null, > txt_lnam_ind char(30) not null, > txt_fnam_ind char(20), > txt_mnam_ind char(10), > txt_addr_mark varchar(40), > primary key (nbr_crs_control,nbr_trn,nbr_branch) constraint "crs".u106_4 > ); > revoke all on "crs".unvalidated_t_trn from "public";> > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1