The user stated they were using 8.1.7.1 :)
Rachel
Carmichael To:
yes I know, which is why I did not suggest it to the original poster.
Dennis was talking about *his* future projects, which is why I
suggested it for him
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The user stated they were using 8.1.7.1 :)
Ooops!!! I missed where the thread changed from 8i to 9ig
Rachel
Rachel, Rick - And I really appreciated Rachel's suggestion because the new
project will be on 9i, so it makes sense for me to change my methods while
taking advantage of the latest Oracle features. Thanks to the goddess!
Dennis Williams
DBA, 40%OCP
Lifetouch, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Could you preserve the constraints and indices if you do somthing similar
like
create table temp as select * from table1 nologging
TRUNCATE table table1
Dennis,
That's a good thought, and it works if you don't have grants,
constraints or dependencies on the original table.
If you drop table1, you lose them all
Rachel
--- DENNIS WILLIAMS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deepak, If there are many columns on these tables, your method may be
best.
Deepak, If there are many columns on these tables, your method may be best.
However, this will generate a lot of redo. You can usually accomplish this
with a CTAS nologging, which won't generate redo. If you really don't want
to change the location, you can:
create table temp as select * from
Rachel Carmichael wrote:
Dennis,
That's a good thought, and it works if you don't have grants,
constraints or dependencies on the original table.
If you drop table1, you lose them all
Rachel
--- DENNIS WILLIAMS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deepak, If there are many columns on these
Yeah, well the developers are always pi$$ed about something anyway. ;-)
Seriously, good point, I've been spoiled, because most of my applications
have kept the RI in the application as was being discussed earlier. Now they
are switching to Java and in future projects will be implementing RI in
Stephane - You asked:
But why the second CTAS ? What about RENAME ? Seems faster to me ...
Well, it depends on whether you are okay with changing locations of the
table. Personally, I'm with you, just accomplish everything with one move of
the data. But I figured someone would object,
Stephane,
It's easy if there is only one level of dependency... but what if (as
they did in one of my systems) there are levels of dependency? It's
sort of like trying to write (or rewrite) the ideptree view. Only you
have to save off the scripts, in the proper order. Oh yes, don't forget
views
9i -- dbms_redefinition
should do it for you :)
--- DENNIS WILLIAMS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, well the developers are always pi$$ed about something anyway.
;-)
Seriously, good point, I've been spoiled, because most of my
applications
have kept the RI in the application as was being
12 matches
Mail list logo
