Re: question about max pages used

Keith Simmons wrote: > On 12/03/2008, Floyd Wellershaus <floyd@fwellers.com> wrote: >> Ok a previous post got me checking. according to a join on systabnames and >> sysptnhdr we have a table with over 11 million npused( pages used ). >> >> The table is not fragmented, and I know I can alleviate any future issue by >> reorging and fragmenting it. >> But I also noticed that this table has 3 indexes ( some multi-column) that >> were created with the "in table" clause. >> >> I am thinking that if our management doesn't want to take as much downtime, >> or give me enough space to do the full reorg, that an option I can provide >> them is to simply drop those indexes and recreate them in their own dbspace, >> or, even recreate them in the same dbspace without the "in table" clause, >> which should cause them to be detached by default. ( IDS10UC5). >> >> Am I correct in all this ? >> >> Thank you, >> Floyd >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Informix-list mailing list >> Informix-list@iiug.org >> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list >> >> > Floyd > > Correct, if the indexes are dropped and then recreated (I would use > the in dbspace syntax even if they are to be in the same dbspace as > the data, there is an onconfig parameter (and I think environmental) > that overrides the default detached behaviour) the space in the table > tblspace becomes available for data and the index pages are in their > own tblspace which does not count towards the 16.77 M max pages per > tblspace. > > Keith DEFAULT_ATTACH (Env. variable). I see no reason to use it... Indexes should be detached, even if they are on the dbspace as you said... Regards. -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently...