not to mention running 48 batch jobs on a 8CPU box with all of them
committing after every record and using the table to generate keys
(Cary
would love this one) ;) They wanted to find other reasons and he
conveniently ignored the real problem.
Beautiful...
Cary Millsap
Hotsos
You probably think you're joking.
Unfortunately . . .
We've been fighting with Oracle for several months
about SEVERE performance degradation on an OpenVMS
application after we upgraded the database to 8.1.7.4
One of Oracle's recommendations taken directly from
our TAR just 2 weeks ago:
o
Ouch.
Suddenly, it seems not so funny
-Original Message-
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:25 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
You probably think you're joking.
Unfortunately . . .
We've been fighting with Oracle for several months
about SEVERE performance
If it's from Oracle, I would believe it, i.e., I would believe
somebody did actually say that ;) But it does not make it right. Now
only if management knew/believed that.
Some more from Oracle,
- Oracle writes to one log member and then the other. So you need both
log members for recovery.
Can we, please, change terminology and use the term log file
instead of log member. I distinctly remember backup recovery
class in NYC when a guy with a heavy accent popped the following
question:
Can I recover the database if I lose my member?
It was the time after lunch while we
Mark,
I just met Elvis behind local Wal-Mart parking lot, we discussed the same topics ...
funny you mention them. Oh ans we did talk about investing in Enron too (got a hot
tip, the stock is going to go up).
Raj
Thanks Raj,
Unfortunately, in my rush to get the kids to school in time, I stuffed the
formatting when my cut 'n' pasting got converted to plain text.
Hope you found it all useful.
Cheers
Richard
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Hi Yong,
One thing I should have mentioned when I posted my epic is that it not
only attempts to correct the numerous technical errors in the article but
also attempts to answer the various questions the article raises but totally
fails to address. What I find most astonishing about the article
Richard:
I think that is the simple way of questioning other person's capacity.
Remember this statment (borrowed from some one !!)
If you are telling something is simple,
you are questioning the other person's intelligence !!'
KG
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ:
Richard, I found it immensely useful, that's why I created the tinyurl and went to
c.d.o.s and read the whole thread, from first to last post. (man those people need to
learn to weed out old comments in the replies).
This is what I love about this forum, it comes with huge amount of knowledge,
Hi Richard,
I think, there are 2 candidates for an answer.
1life (nothing is more difficult)
2...love (ever tried to read your madam's thoughts?) ;-)
Corrections welcome (as always).
Cheers,
Guido
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10.12.2003 11.39 Uhr
(snip)
If I can convince anyone who makes it
: rebuilding indexes - sure to
cause a ruckus
And in case you miss it in
Richard's terse message, one of the big reasons that it is not 'rocket science' is that you can perform
operations that modify the index(es), and perform block dumps of the index as you go. You can see
exactly what
Hi KG,
O, you've got me thinking here !!
I'm not too sure that I've really questioned anyone's intelligence. I've
always measured someone's intelligence by:
1. How quickly the can learn and absorb new information
2. How much they know and appreciate the work of David Bowie
A quick
Richard Foote scribbled on the wall in glitter crayon:
BTW, does anyone know what a rocket scientist refers to when they say
Hey, this is all quite easy, it sure ain't ? ?
the only two i know use theoretical physics.;-)
--
Bill Shrek Thater ORACLE DBA
I'm going to work my
BTW, does anyone know what a rocket scientist refers to when
they say Hey,
this is all quite easy, it sure ain't ? ?
Cheers ;)
Richard
Surely the Rocket Scientist version must be Hey, this is all quite easy, it sure
ain't index rebuilding
very evil grin
Ciao
Fuzzy
:-)
--
Please
LOL,
This made me think of the Simpson's Halloween episode where Monty Burns
says,
'Smithers, this isn't rocket science, its brain surgery'.
-
Alan Davey
Senior Analyst/Project Leader
Oracle 9i OCA; 3/4 OCP
w) 973.267.5990 x458
w) 212.295.3458
I think this subject has been done to death. We should talk about less contentious
issues such as:
- The buffer cache hit ratio, your friend in expert Oracle tuning!
- Rebuild your tables regularly to reduce the number of extents and improve
performance!
- Disk access is at least 10,000x
How about: Keep re-analyzing your tables and indexes. Run
gather_statistics (or whatever) all the time.
Bobak, Mark wrote:
I think this subject has been done to death. We should talk about less contentious issues such as:
- The buffer cache hit ratio, your friend in expert Oracle tuning!
-
Hi Tanel,
I recommend a strong cup of coffee and a small nap 1/2 way through ;)
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 7:44 AM
Ouch, I gotta take a day off to read this one ;)
--
Please see the official
Hi Paul,
The long one includes a discussion on why you should generally coalesce
rather than rebuild indexes ;)
Cheers
Richard
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 8:44 AM
somewhat on the longish side???
Hi Steve,
I agree completely, but the question is would you rebuild it afterwards ?
Cheers ;-)
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 9:29 AM
I think it needs an index. ;-)
-Original Message-
This message's a keeper! Thanks! :)
Rich
Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech Inc, Sussex, WI USA
-Original Message-
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:29 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Hi Yong,
Richard's explanation and example from c.d.o.s now has a permanent tinyurl link ...
http://tinyurl.com/yflq if anyone is interested ... this might be better for bookmarks.
Raj
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn
What sort of Oak Table member are you, Richard? Any Oak Table member
worth their weight in toilet paper would certainly execute DBMS_POWERNAP
part way through, but the strong cup of coffee definitely needs a large
shot of whiskey substituted for it! :)
Pete
Controlling developers is like
Thanks, Richard. I'll read your long message more carefully later. I like your
statement that rebuilding an index or not is not rocket science. One needs to
measure the performance before and after the rebuild and make a conclusion
himself. Many times we discuss performance issues and get very
Huang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12/09/2003 11:44 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To:Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: rebuilding indexes - sure to cause a ruckus
Thanks, Richard. I'll read your long message more
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. --Richard Feynman
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
Upcoming events:
- Performance Diagnosis 101: 12/16 Detroit, 1/27 Atlanta
- SQL Optimization 101: 12/8 Dallas, 2/16 Dallas
- Hotsos Symposium 2004: March 7-10 Dallas
, 2003
5:15 PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject:
Re: rebuilding indexes - sure to cause a ruckusAnd in case you miss it in Richard's terse message, one
of the big reasons that it is not
'rocket science' is that you can perform operations that modify the
index(es), and perform
to be done, e.g. running 10 millions of
continous transactions and queries (simulating real life). Do one 10M
without rebuilding indexes in the meantime, measure total execution time,
IO
amount, CPU usage, segment sizes etc.
Then restore your database back to starting point and do the same test
again
blocks can be reused
by subsequent index splits. So the chance of any free space being
eventually
used is high (please see Metalink Note 182699.1 where Oracle have
published
my warnings regarding unnecessarily rebuilding indexes due to these
factors). However, there are situations when this free
be reused
by subsequent index splits. So the chance of any free space being eventually
used is high (please see Metalink Note 182699.1 where Oracle have published
my warnings regarding unnecessarily rebuilding indexes due to these
factors). However, there are situations when this free space may never
Tanel Poder wrote:
Ouch, I gotta take a day off to read this one ;)
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
It's all about optimization...
--
Vladimir Begun
The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and
do not necessarily represent those of Oracle Corporation.
--
Please see
somewhat on the longish side???
I'd hate to see a long article! ;-)
--- Richard Foote [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Yong,
Saying there are a few errors is being a little kind to Don's
Inside
Oracle Indexing article.
In part, these are some of the issues I raised directly with Don in a
I think it needs an index. ;-)
-Original Message-
Paul Baumgartel
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:44 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
somewhat on the longish side???
I'd hate to see a long article! ;-)
--- Richard Foote [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Yong,
Saying there
. running 10 millions of
continous transactions and queries (simulating real life). Do one 10M
without rebuilding indexes in the meantime, measure total execution time, IO
amount, CPU usage, segment sizes etc.
Then restore your database back to starting point and do the same test again
with regular
http://www.dbazine.com/burleson18.shtml
Wow. We've got a lot of indexes to rebuild... :)
Seems like those criteria have been beaten up on this list before.
Rich
Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech Inc, Sussex, WI USA
-Original Message-
Sent:
millions of
continous transactions and queries (simulating real life). Do one 10M
without rebuilding indexes in the meantime, measure total execution time, IO
amount, CPU usage, segment sizes etc.
Then restore your database back to starting point and do the same test again
with regular index rebuilds
Thanks,
Added this one to my bookmarks along with
http://www.oracle.com/oramag/webcolumns/2001/index.html?auto_index.html
and
http://www.dba-oracle.com/art_index1.htm
Sten ;)
-Original Message-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:55 AM
To: Multiple recipients of
Comments in-line
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
The educated person is not the person
who can answer the questions, but the
person who can question the answers -- T. Schick Jr
One-day tutorials:
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/tutorial.html
Three-day seminar:
by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11/05/2003 06:14 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To:Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:any problem rebuilding indexes used for replication
Hello,
I have to rebuild some primary key indexes due to excessive
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To:Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:any problem rebuilding indexes used for replicationHello, I have to rebuild some primary key indexes due to excessive fragmentation. It is rebuild not drop and create. We have
To:Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: any problem rebuilding indexes used for replication
Jared : I think it is fragmented based on scripts and knowing that there have been lot of deletes.
One script uses the table index_stats and looks
there's almost no need to rebuild indexes, although his
Practical Oracle8i lists at least one case you may benefit by rebuilding. (I
don't have the book with me). Asktom.oracle.com has numerous messages advising
against rebuilding indexes. Let's set theory aside for a moment and do the
experiment
problem rebuilding indexes used for replication
renu (and Jared),
The reason I'm very interested in whether there's performance improvement is
that there's a thread on the newsgroup about index rebuild recently. See
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=pan.2003.11.03.08.09.24.330520%40RE-MO
at least one case you may benefit by rebuilding. (I
don't have the book with me). Asktom.oracle.com has numerous messages advising
against rebuilding indexes. Let's set theory aside for a moment and do the
experiment. Please post your report of performance change. Thanks.
Yong Huang
--- renu r
PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: any problem rebuilding indexes used for
replication
renu (and Jared),
The reason I'm very interested in whether there's performance improvement
is
that there's a thread on the newsgroup about index rebuild recently. See
http
advising
against rebuilding indexes. Let's set theory aside for a moment and do the
experiment. Please post your report of performance change. Thanks.
Yong Huang
--- renu r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jared : I think it is fragmented based on scripts and knowing that there
have
been
have the book with me). Asktom.oracle.com has numerous messages
advising
against rebuilding indexes. Let's set theory aside for a moment and do the
experiment. Please post your report of performance change. Thanks.
Yong Huang
--- renu r [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jared : I think
Hello,
Ihave torebuild some primary key indexesdue to excessive fragmentation. It is rebuild not drop and create.We have multi master replication running. Is there any problem to replicationif I do that. Has anyone tried it? TIA.
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
Hi, renu,
I'll let experts anwser your question. But I have a request for you. Before and
after you rebuild (or coalesce) your indexes, please make close observation on
your application performance, as well as the statistics and sizes of the
indexes. I'd like to know whether rebuilding them
] cc:
Subject:RE: re Rebuilding Indexes in
Oracle Apps -- an updateRichard et al,{for those who've been
following the thread on Rebuilding Indexes ...}I've just been reading
the AskTom thread on rebuilding indexesat
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f
:
Subject:Re: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- an update
Jared,
I don't see how index skip scans could benefit more from a rebuild than from coalesce (providing the index height remains the same). Skip scan doesn't scan the whole index like FFS does, it just does several scans
/2003 12:34 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To:Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- an update
Richard et al,
{for those who've been following the thread on Rebuilding Indexes ...}
I've just been
Richard et al,
{for those who've been following the thread on Rebuilding Indexes ...}
I've just been reading the AskTom thread on rebuilding indexes
at
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p=4950:8:F4950_P8_DISPLAYID:6601312252730
and picked on the important line
Coalesce... reclaim
Hi Hemant,
How I dislike being immortalised ;)
The note basically quoted me word for word on my feedback and that's fine,
it's certainly an improvement on what was previously suggested (and yes,
Oracle asked for my permission).
A point I would add though is that the whole subject of how Oracle
Yes. However, every time he has replied to me, he has been confident that he
IS right.
Mind you, Richard, you are immortalised now !
Hemant
At 05:04 PM 22-10-03 -0800, you wrote:
So now the blame rests solely on Richard for any material in the note that's
wrong. :)
Check the latest update:
11:42 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To:Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- was
RE: RE:
I wonder if it is not necessary to rebuild indexes is also a myth.
It IS in some cases
So now the blame rests solely on Richard for any material in the note that's
wrong. :)
Check the latest update:
http://metalink.oracle.com/metalink/plsql/ml2_documents.showDocument?p_datab
ase_id=NOTp_id=182699.1
Pete
Controlling developers is like herding cats.
Kevin Loney, Oracle DBA Handbook
of indexes that remain generally
need
coalescing rather than rebuilding.
Indexes that exist in Oracle Applications are not special, they follow
the
same rules as those indexes in SAP, or in-house applications, etc.
Hemant, take a look at Jonathan Lewis's article When Should You Rebuild
Unfortunately, the lines
Unoccupied space on indexes occurs when a key value changes, and the
index
row is deleted from one place (Leaf Block) and inserted into another.
Deleted Leaf Rows are not reused. Therefore, indexes whose columns are
subject to intensive value change
Oops, I didn't see that part. Thanks for the catch, Hemant.
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
Upcoming events:
- Performance Diagnosis 101: 10/28 Phoenix, 11/19 Sydney
- SQL Optimization 101: 12/8-12 Dallas
- Hotsos Symposium 2004: March 7-10 Dallas
- Visit
Fyi, Oracle updated note 182699.1 last Friday. The inaccurate statements
about index fragmentation have been removed.
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
Upcoming events:
- Performance Diagnosis 101: 10/28 Phoenix, 11/19 Sydney
- SQL Optimization 101: 12/8-12 Dallas
-
Thanks for the info Cary.
Jared
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 09:29, Cary Millsap wrote:
Fyi, Oracle updated note 182699.1 last Friday. The inaccurate statements
about index fragmentation have been removed.
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
Upcoming events:
-
Hi Hemant,
One word perfectly describes the Metalink article you highlighted:
Crap ;)
A nice example of how Oracle Corp is the greatest myth generator of them
all !! It's all rather sad and embarressing isn't.
Thanks for the headsup. Anyone in a position to get the note removed ?
Cheers
ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- Quoting an Apps
Richard,
Quoting Metalink Note 182699.1 on bde_rebuild.sql - Validates and
Rebuilds Fragmentated Indexes (8.0-9.0)
Index fragmentation occurs when a key value changes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10/17/2003 04:29 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To:Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- was RE: RE: Separate
Hi Hemant,
One word perfectly describes
PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- was RE: RE:
I wonder if it is not necessary to rebuild indexes is also a myth.
It IS in some cases necessary
1. Indexes on monotonically increasing values [eg Conrurrent_Request_ID
based on a Sequence
or even on date
-LSubject: Re:
re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- was RE:
RE:The article states
that leaf blocks are not reused, which is indeed incorrect, and has been for a very long
time.**This e-mail message
I wonder if it is not necessary to rebuild indexes is also a myth.
It IS in some cases necessary
1. Indexes on monotonically increasing values [eg Conrurrent_Request_ID
based on a Sequence
or even on date columns which signify when the record is created] if the
table is also
purged by the same
ist ORACLE-LSubject: Re:
re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- was RE:
RE:The article states
that leaf blocks are not reused, which is indeed incorrect, and has been for a very long
time.
Hemant K Chitale
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED
than the indexes
directly and then the tiny tiny ratio of indexes that remain generally need
coalescing rather than rebuilding.
Indexes that exist in Oracle Applications are not special, they follow the
same rules as those indexes in SAP, or in-house applications, etc.
Hemant, take a look
On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 18:04, M Rafiq
wrote: Jared,Those tables are transit
type of tables and depending on your volume of data, there are lot
of deletes and inserts all the time resuling index
fragmentation(holes due to deletes) and space usage.
The rebuilding not only release
All of that is fair enough but the number of rows and the values you've
chosen fit the point you wished to prove. The value 5 conveniently fits
the range for an existing leaf block with empty space.
The facts as I understand them are this :
Index space freed by deleted entries can be reused (
At 01:34 PM 14-10-03 -0800, you wrote:
Hemant,
John,
My apologies for the delay. I hadn't logged on to my email last night.
Here's the output from my site
11.0.3
Purge Obsolete Workflow Runtime Data set to AGE=90 days [ITEM_TYPE and
ITEM_KEY null in parameters]
SQL set time on
14:57:42 SQL
Correction. Paragraph 4 should begin, I agree though that index rebuilds
are often unnecessary.
Mike
-Original Message-
Sent: 16 October 2003 15:20
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
All of that is fair enough but the number of rows and the values you've
chosen fit the point you wished to prove.
load) and rebuilding indexes with regular interval to keep smooth
performance.
In my opinion, we always need performance satisfaction of end user instead
of numbers.
If you have any specific question, please let me know.
Regards
Rafiq
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Multiple
]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10/16/2003 10:34 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To:Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- was RE: RE: Separate
Jared,
Unfortunately at this stage I cannot quantify
:
Subject:RE: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- was RE:
RE: Separate
Jared,
Unfortunately at this stage I cannot quantify in numbers as I have left
that
job 5 months back. But dealing with Oracle Financials 10.7 with version
7.3.4, I observed it practically that this table
Richard,
Quoting Metalink Note 182699.1 on
bde_rebuild.sql -
Validates and
Rebuilds Fragmentated Indexes
(8.0-9.0)
Index fragmentation occurs when a key value changes, and the index row is
deleted from one place (Leaf Block) and inserted into
another.
Deleted Leaf Rows are not reused.
Hemant,
It is absolutely true with Oracle Financials Databases and I have seen
performance degradation when indexes on such databses are not rebuilt at a
regular interval meaning indexes on certain tables on mothly basis.
Regards
Rafiq
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Multiple recipients of
]
cc:
Subject:RE: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- was RE: RE: Separate
John
What about gl_interface table indexes? I think indexes on all *interface(
tables must be rebuild on a regular interval...I was building indexes on
gl_interfaces and fnd_request* tables on monthly basis
, October 15, 2003
5:19 PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject:
RE: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- was RE: RE:
SeparatePlease explain
why these indexes must be built. What benefits do you see from it? Are they quantifiable? Jared
"M
by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10/14/2003 03:49 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To:Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- was RE:
RE: Separate
John
What about gl_interface
PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10/14/2003 03:49 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- was RE:
RE: Separate
John
What about gl_interface table
]
cc:
Subject:RE: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- was RE:
RE: Separate
John
What about gl_interface table indexes? I think indexes on all *interface(
tables must be rebuild on a regular interval...I was building indexes on
gl_interfaces and fnd_request* tables
it?
Are they quantifiable?
Jared
M Rafiq [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10/14/2003 03:49 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: re Rebuilding Indexes in Oracle Apps -- was RE
, a sequentially incrementing numeric key is
possibly one of those circumstances.
Not much point in rebuilding indexes in most cases.
If anyone cares to submit test cases for validation of the need of an
index rebuild, you may do so here.
Give me some test fodder!
Jared
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
Hemant,
This applies on 11i only. I would rebuild all indexes supporting the
WF_ITEM_ACTIVITY_STATUSES and WF_ATTRIBUTE_VALUES tables. I have been
working on some AOL table(space) problems in the background and noticed that
in 11i by default, we are not be purging _all_ the WF data that we should
John
What about gl_interface table indexes? I think indexes on all *interface(
tables must be rebuild on a regular interval...I was building indexes on
gl_interfaces and fnd_request* tables on monthly basis.
Regards
Rafiq
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Rafiq,
John
What about gl_interface table indexes? I think indexes on all
*interface(
tables must be rebuild on a regular interval...I was building
indexes on
gl_interfaces and fnd_request* tables on monthly basis.
Indeed the interface tables suffer as well. I would suggest a TRUNCate of
John
At my location I was not finding those tables without rows so simple
truncate was not the easy option. However, from time to time I was
truncating them by removing rows into temp type of tables and placing those
rows back. However, index rebuilding was more practical under that
situation.
Hi, I do rebuild index for table AP_INVOICES_ALL
but it seems that no effect on extents.
select owner, segment_name, tablespace_name, count(*), sum(bytes)
2 from sys.dba_extents
3 where segment_name like 'AP_INVOICES_N3' and tablespace_name='APX'
4 group by owner, segment_name,
that
need to be rebuilt, and then
rebuilding them, I have to
say
that
this is almost never necessary.
Why are you rebuilding indexes?
About
the only reason
for
ever
=== message truncated
that
need to be rebuilt, and then
rebuilding them, I have to
say
that
this is almost never necessary.
Why are you rebuilding indexes?
About
the only reason
for
ever
=== message truncated
yes but :)
It's a partitioned index. Yes, the partition goes into an UNUSABLE
state. If I drop the constraint without keep index and without saving
off the statement to rebuild it properly, I drop the ENTIRE index and I
end up with a non-partitioned index in the schema owner's default
tablespace
)
Sent by: Subject: Re: Rebuilding Indexes...
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Okay, I did 4 different tests, as follows:
in each test I created a partitioned table.
Test 1 -- create a unique partitioned index, then create a primary key
constraint with the same columns
Test 2 -- create a non-unique partitioned index, then create a primary
key constraint with the same
Dailey/NAC/ING-FSI-NA)
Sent by:
Subject: Re: Rebuilding Indexes...
[EMAIL PROTECTED
by:
Subject: Re: Rebuilding Indexes...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
12/26/2002 10:13
PM
Please respond to
ORACLE-L
Though I have published
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
