dunno about that. I was making the assumption that *which* columns
changed was already known.
This would require testing by someone familiar with the data.
Jared
"Jamadagni, Rajendra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/29/2003 10:24 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Which method is more efficient
Jared,
Agreed, but what about the resources needs to find _which_ column changed
?? Would that offset the extra redo generated? Heck, I'd just generate the
update statements based on two tables to _only_ update the changed
columns. It is pretty easy, if both tables have _same_ columns ...
Raj
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot com
All Views expressed in this email are strictly personal.
QOTD: Any clod can have facts, having an opinion is an art !
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 6:15 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
There are easier ways to test redo generation than mucking about with
logminer.
Update only the column that changes and check redo generation:
15:06:09 rsysdevdb.radisys.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] SQL> @t1
[ much stuff deleted ]
********************************************************************This e-mail
message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may
contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, or are
not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify corporate MIS at (860) 766-2000
and delete this e-mail message from your computer, Thank
you.*********************************************************************2
