RE: Conversion from CLOB to RAW
Thanks Dennis, I'm meeting with them this morning at 10 to discuss this in more detail now that I have some feedback from the list, all of which I appreciate. I don't believe they are searching the information, but will know shortly. Regards, Bill Burke The Kinder and Gentler DBA IOUG University Master Class Faculty 2001-2002 iDBA Management, High Performance Infrastructure and HA IOUG Board of Directors 2000-2002 ODTUG Board of Directors 1996-2000 www.OracleGuru.com www.KBMotorsports.biz -Original Message- Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 2:44 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Bill - Will you need to search for information that will be compressed? If yes, then performance could be really, really bad. Dennis Williams DBA, 40%OCP Lifetouch, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 2:07 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L I wasn't. I actually am still trying to look at the varchar2. The downside is the huge amount of data they want to keep in a compressed format hence the RAW or BLOB format. Regards, Bill Burke The Kinder and Gentler DBA IOUG University Master Class Faculty 2001-2002 iDBA Management, High Performance Infrastructure and HA IOUG Board of Directors 2000-2002 ODTUG Board of Directors 1996-2000 www.OracleGuru.com www.KBMotorsports.biz -Original Message- Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 12:34 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Bill, If the data length is less than 2K, why not use varchar2? You get all the functionality like substr(), instr(), like etc. I'm not sure why you are leaning towards RAW, when the type you are storing is of character based. HTH. Arup - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 1:33 PM The amount of data being stored is fairly significant @60G of xml transaction data. The developers want to apply a compression routine to the xml string which will save about 70% of the space currently in use. BLOB was my original recommendation, they were pushing to go RAW instead. We've only got a couple of CLOB's out there, but they are taking up huge amounts of storage. On the overkill note, most all of the XML has been parsed to less than 2K in length so one of my thoughts was we had introduced LOB functionality without really needing it. The other aside to this is we will definately need to partition the data when we do the conversion as it currently resides in a traditional table as a CLOB. Regards, Bill Burke The Kinder and Gentler DBA IOUG University Master Class Faculty 2001-2002 iDBA Management, High Performance Infrastructure and HA IOUG Board of Directors 2000-2002 ODTUG Board of Directors 1996-2000 www.OracleGuru.com www.KBMotorsports.biz -Original Message- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:24 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Bill, I agree with Michael. You've already got the data in a suitable datatype. Why move it to a cumbersome, soon-to-be-obsolete datatype? You can use DBMS_LOB functionality on LOBs, not on Raw. I'd be so happy if the couple dozen tables in our 3rd party Student Information system that have Long or Long Raw columns had CLOB or BLOB columns instead. It would make converting them to partitioned tables much easier. I definitely vote to keep your CLOBs. Jack C. Applewhite Database Administrator Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas 512.414.9715 (wk) 512.935.5929 (pager) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Fontana [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L et [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Conversion from CLOB to RAW 01/10/2003 02:15 PM Please respond to ORACLE-L At 11:30 AM 1/10/2003 -0800, Burke, William F (Bill) wrote: Here's where I get to ask the most likely simple question. I've inherited a database where it was built using a CLOB to hold XML data but we have now determined that was total overkill and want to move it to a RAW column or other suitable datatype. Looking for conversion issues or other alternatives. Since Oracle is moving us away from LONG and RAW datatypes, I assume you want to convert from CLOB to BLOB? BLOB is probably more storage-efficient, but since XML is made up of character data, I don't really understand the issue with keeping it a CLOB. What do you mean by overkill? -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San
RE: Conversion from CLOB to RAW
I wasn't. I actually am still trying to look at the varchar2. The downside is the huge amount of data they want to keep in a compressed format hence the RAW or BLOB format. Regards, Bill Burke The Kinder and Gentler DBA IOUG University Master Class Faculty 2001-2002 iDBA Management, High Performance Infrastructure and HA IOUG Board of Directors 2000-2002 ODTUG Board of Directors 1996-2000 www.OracleGuru.com www.KBMotorsports.biz -Original Message- Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 12:34 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Bill, If the data length is less than 2K, why not use varchar2? You get all the functionality like substr(), instr(), like etc. I'm not sure why you are leaning towards RAW, when the type you are storing is of character based. HTH. Arup - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 1:33 PM The amount of data being stored is fairly significant @60G of xml transaction data. The developers want to apply a compression routine to the xml string which will save about 70% of the space currently in use. BLOB was my original recommendation, they were pushing to go RAW instead. We've only got a couple of CLOB's out there, but they are taking up huge amounts of storage. On the overkill note, most all of the XML has been parsed to less than 2K in length so one of my thoughts was we had introduced LOB functionality without really needing it. The other aside to this is we will definately need to partition the data when we do the conversion as it currently resides in a traditional table as a CLOB. Regards, Bill Burke The Kinder and Gentler DBA IOUG University Master Class Faculty 2001-2002 iDBA Management, High Performance Infrastructure and HA IOUG Board of Directors 2000-2002 ODTUG Board of Directors 1996-2000 www.OracleGuru.com www.KBMotorsports.biz -Original Message- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:24 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Bill, I agree with Michael. You've already got the data in a suitable datatype. Why move it to a cumbersome, soon-to-be-obsolete datatype? You can use DBMS_LOB functionality on LOBs, not on Raw. I'd be so happy if the couple dozen tables in our 3rd party Student Information system that have Long or Long Raw columns had CLOB or BLOB columns instead. It would make converting them to partitioned tables much easier. I definitely vote to keep your CLOBs. Jack C. Applewhite Database Administrator Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas 512.414.9715 (wk) 512.935.5929 (pager) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Fontana [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L et [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Conversion from CLOB to RAW 01/10/2003 02:15 PM Please respond to ORACLE-L At 11:30 AM 1/10/2003 -0800, Burke, William F (Bill) wrote: Here's where I get to ask the most likely simple question. I've inherited a database where it was built using a CLOB to hold XML data but we have now determined that was total overkill and want to move it to a RAW column or other suitable datatype. Looking for conversion issues or other alternatives. Since Oracle is moving us away from LONG and RAW datatypes, I assume you want to convert from CLOB to BLOB? BLOB is probably more storage-efficient, but since XML is made up of character data, I don't really understand the issue with keeping it a CLOB. What do you mean by overkill? -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Burke, William F (Bill) INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT
RE: Conversion from CLOB to RAW
Bill - Will you need to search for information that will be compressed? If yes, then performance could be really, really bad. Dennis Williams DBA, 40%OCP Lifetouch, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 2:07 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L I wasn't. I actually am still trying to look at the varchar2. The downside is the huge amount of data they want to keep in a compressed format hence the RAW or BLOB format. Regards, Bill Burke The Kinder and Gentler DBA IOUG University Master Class Faculty 2001-2002 iDBA Management, High Performance Infrastructure and HA IOUG Board of Directors 2000-2002 ODTUG Board of Directors 1996-2000 www.OracleGuru.com www.KBMotorsports.biz -Original Message- Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 12:34 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Bill, If the data length is less than 2K, why not use varchar2? You get all the functionality like substr(), instr(), like etc. I'm not sure why you are leaning towards RAW, when the type you are storing is of character based. HTH. Arup - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 1:33 PM The amount of data being stored is fairly significant @60G of xml transaction data. The developers want to apply a compression routine to the xml string which will save about 70% of the space currently in use. BLOB was my original recommendation, they were pushing to go RAW instead. We've only got a couple of CLOB's out there, but they are taking up huge amounts of storage. On the overkill note, most all of the XML has been parsed to less than 2K in length so one of my thoughts was we had introduced LOB functionality without really needing it. The other aside to this is we will definately need to partition the data when we do the conversion as it currently resides in a traditional table as a CLOB. Regards, Bill Burke The Kinder and Gentler DBA IOUG University Master Class Faculty 2001-2002 iDBA Management, High Performance Infrastructure and HA IOUG Board of Directors 2000-2002 ODTUG Board of Directors 1996-2000 www.OracleGuru.com www.KBMotorsports.biz -Original Message- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:24 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Bill, I agree with Michael. You've already got the data in a suitable datatype. Why move it to a cumbersome, soon-to-be-obsolete datatype? You can use DBMS_LOB functionality on LOBs, not on Raw. I'd be so happy if the couple dozen tables in our 3rd party Student Information system that have Long or Long Raw columns had CLOB or BLOB columns instead. It would make converting them to partitioned tables much easier. I definitely vote to keep your CLOBs. Jack C. Applewhite Database Administrator Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas 512.414.9715 (wk) 512.935.5929 (pager) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Fontana [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L et [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Conversion from CLOB to RAW 01/10/2003 02:15 PM Please respond to ORACLE-L At 11:30 AM 1/10/2003 -0800, Burke, William F (Bill) wrote: Here's where I get to ask the most likely simple question. I've inherited a database where it was built using a CLOB to hold XML data but we have now determined that was total overkill and want to move it to a RAW column or other suitable datatype. Looking for conversion issues or other alternatives. Since Oracle is moving us away from LONG and RAW datatypes, I assume you want to convert from CLOB to BLOB? BLOB is probably more storage-efficient, but since XML is made up of character data, I don't really understand the issue with keeping it a CLOB. What do you mean by overkill? -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Burke, William F (Bill) INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City
RE: Conversion from CLOB to RAW
The amount of data being stored is fairly significant @60G of xml transaction data. The developers want to apply a compression routine to the xml string which will save about 70% of the space currently in use. BLOB was my original recommendation, they were pushing to go RAW instead. We've only got a couple of CLOB's out there, but they are taking up huge amounts of storage. On the overkill note, most all of the XML has been parsed to less than 2K in length so one of my thoughts was we had introduced LOB functionality without really needing it. The other aside to this is we will definately need to partition the data when we do the conversion as it currently resides in a traditional table as a CLOB. Regards, Bill Burke The Kinder and Gentler DBA IOUG University Master Class Faculty 2001-2002 iDBA Management, High Performance Infrastructure and HA IOUG Board of Directors 2000-2002 ODTUG Board of Directors 1996-2000 www.OracleGuru.com www.KBMotorsports.biz -Original Message- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:24 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Bill, I agree with Michael. You've already got the data in a suitable datatype. Why move it to a cumbersome, soon-to-be-obsolete datatype? You can use DBMS_LOB functionality on LOBs, not on Raw. I'd be so happy if the couple dozen tables in our 3rd party Student Information system that have Long or Long Raw columns had CLOB or BLOB columns instead. It would make converting them to partitioned tables much easier. I definitely vote to keep your CLOBs. Jack C. Applewhite Database Administrator Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas 512.414.9715 (wk) 512.935.5929 (pager) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Fontana [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L et [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Conversion from CLOB to RAW 01/10/2003 02:15 PM Please respond to ORACLE-L At 11:30 AM 1/10/2003 -0800, Burke, William F (Bill) wrote: Here's where I get to ask the most likely simple question. I've inherited a database where it was built using a CLOB to hold XML data but we have now determined that was total overkill and want to move it to a RAW column or other suitable datatype. Looking for conversion issues or other alternatives. Since Oracle is moving us away from LONG and RAW datatypes, I assume you want to convert from CLOB to BLOB? BLOB is probably more storage-efficient, but since XML is made up of character data, I don't really understand the issue with keeping it a CLOB. What do you mean by overkill? -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Burke, William F (Bill) INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Re: Conversion from CLOB to RAW
Bill, If the data length is less than 2K, why not use varchar2? You get all the functionality like substr(), instr(), like etc. I'm not sure why you are leaning towards RAW, when the type you are storing is of character based. HTH. Arup - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 1:33 PM The amount of data being stored is fairly significant @60G of xml transaction data. The developers want to apply a compression routine to the xml string which will save about 70% of the space currently in use. BLOB was my original recommendation, they were pushing to go RAW instead. We've only got a couple of CLOB's out there, but they are taking up huge amounts of storage. On the overkill note, most all of the XML has been parsed to less than 2K in length so one of my thoughts was we had introduced LOB functionality without really needing it. The other aside to this is we will definately need to partition the data when we do the conversion as it currently resides in a traditional table as a CLOB. Regards, Bill Burke The Kinder and Gentler DBA IOUG University Master Class Faculty 2001-2002 iDBA Management, High Performance Infrastructure and HA IOUG Board of Directors 2000-2002 ODTUG Board of Directors 1996-2000 www.OracleGuru.com www.KBMotorsports.biz -Original Message- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:24 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Bill, I agree with Michael. You've already got the data in a suitable datatype. Why move it to a cumbersome, soon-to-be-obsolete datatype? You can use DBMS_LOB functionality on LOBs, not on Raw. I'd be so happy if the couple dozen tables in our 3rd party Student Information system that have Long or Long Raw columns had CLOB or BLOB columns instead. It would make converting them to partitioned tables much easier. I definitely vote to keep your CLOBs. Jack C. Applewhite Database Administrator Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas 512.414.9715 (wk) 512.935.5929 (pager) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Fontana [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L et [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Conversion from CLOB to RAW 01/10/2003 02:15 PM Please respond to ORACLE-L At 11:30 AM 1/10/2003 -0800, Burke, William F (Bill) wrote: Here's where I get to ask the most likely simple question. I've inherited a database where it was built using a CLOB to hold XML data but we have now determined that was total overkill and want to move it to a RAW column or other suitable datatype. Looking for conversion issues or other alternatives. Since Oracle is moving us away from LONG and RAW datatypes, I assume you want to convert from CLOB to BLOB? BLOB is probably more storage-efficient, but since XML is made up of character data, I don't really understand the issue with keeping it a CLOB. What do you mean by overkill? -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Burke, William F (Bill) INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Arup Nanda INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services
Re: Conversion from CLOB to RAW
At 11:30 AM 1/10/2003 -0800, Burke, William F (Bill) wrote: Here's where I get to ask the most likely simple question. I've inherited a database where it was built using a CLOB to hold XML data but we have now determined that was total overkill and want to move it to a RAW column or other suitable datatype. Looking for conversion issues or other alternatives. Since Oracle is moving us away from LONG and RAW datatypes, I assume you want to convert from CLOB to BLOB? BLOB is probably more storage-efficient, but since XML is made up of character data, I don't really understand the issue with keeping it a CLOB. What do you mean by overkill?
Re: Conversion from CLOB to RAW
Bill, I agree with Michael. You've already got the data in a suitable datatype. Why move it to a cumbersome, soon-to-be-obsolete datatype? You can use DBMS_LOB functionality on LOBs, not on Raw. I'd be so happy if the couple dozen tables in our 3rd party Student Information system that have Long or Long Raw columns had CLOB or BLOB columns instead. It would make converting them to partitioned tables much easier. I definitely vote to keep your CLOBs. Jack C. Applewhite Database Administrator Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas 512.414.9715 (wk) 512.935.5929 (pager) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Fontana [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L et [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Conversion from CLOB to RAW 01/10/2003 02:15 PM Please respond to ORACLE-L At 11:30 AM 1/10/2003 -0800, Burke, William F (Bill) wrote: Here's where I get to ask the most likely simple question. I've inherited a database where it was built using a CLOB to hold XML data but we have now determined that was total overkill and want to move it to a RAW column or other suitable datatype. Looking for conversion issues or other alternatives. Since Oracle is moving us away from LONG and RAW datatypes, I assume you want to convert from CLOB to BLOB? BLOB is probably more storage-efficient, but since XML is made up of character data, I don't really understand the issue with keeping it a CLOB. What do you mean by overkill? -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
