[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Which method is more efficient
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:14 AM
1. to totally eliminate redo, load your staging records into a global temp
table. it has absolutely
oh it wasnt none, it was cut in half. I skimmed it.
my bad
From: Richard Foote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2003/05/29 Thu AM 08:45:46 EDT
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Which method is more efficient
- Original Message -
To: Multiple
]
Date: 2003/05/28 Wed PM 02:40:25 EDT
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: Which method is more efficient
The fields that are changed are determined by
1) A loop would start until all records in parts change table are done
2) Select a part record from
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: Which method is more efficient
Yes, I am in archive log mode and I have had 2 occurances of filling up the
archive log filesystem, but I don't want to change one problem for another.
Bryan
-Original Message-
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 3:20 PM
Title: 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
/28 Wed PM 12:59:51 EDT
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Which method is more efficient
Bryan - If this is a critical issue, I would try it both ways on a test
database and use log miner to examine the amount of redo that is generated.
My recollection
/28 Wed PM 12:59:51 EDT
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Which method is more efficient
Bryan - If this is a critical issue, I would try it both ways on a test
database and use log miner to examine the amount of redo that is
generated.
My recollection
: Rodrigues, Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2003/05/28 Wed PM 02:40:25 EDT
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: Which method is more efficient
The fields that are changed are determined by
1) A loop would start until all records in parts change table
Title: RE: RE: Which method is more efficient
Bryan,
Can you ...
create table my_work_table as
select * from changed_parts_table
minus
select * from existing_parts_table
/
The result will give you all the rows where _something_ is different between your existing table and changed table
Title: RE: RE: Which method is more efficient
And
with CTAS you can specify nologging to minimize redo generation. "Cloning" a
table, renaming/dropping the source, and renaming the clone to the production
table could be interesting. You would have to recreate indexes.
---
10 matches
Mail list logo
