Re: question about max pages used

Thanks for verifying that Keith. ----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: question about max pages used Date: Wed, March 12, 2008 7:42 From: "Keith Simmons" <smiley73@googlemail.com> 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 > >