RE: fragmentation factor

Posted in 2005

malcolm weallans — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:02:23 +0100 — source: Usenet: comp.databases.informix

And I haven't seen any definitive reasons why it doesn't matter. I am just told by many people, including Informix Tech Support, that it isn't a good idea to have large numbers of extents. Now if anybody who says we shouldn't have too many extents can explain that reasoning I am sure we would all be very grateful. Regards Malcolm -----Original Message----- From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Captain Pedantic Sent: 10 October 2005 15:53 To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: fragmentation factor "malcolm weallans" <malcolm.iiug@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:1128939349.1e2a7098a8d96562b9303493f7e99638@teranews... > > David, > You misundertand my intention. My aim is to provide a comparison > figure between different sites so that they have a yardstick to > measure by. But my original suggestion does not take into account the > likelihood of access. That should be borne in mind. Does it matter if > a table is fragmented if it > is rarely accessed? > > Regards > > Malcolm Does it matter if a table is fragmented anyway post v5? There was a thread on this a month or so back but I don't recall seeing any definitve reasons that it does. sending to informix-list