Yes, but when analyzed, it turns out that NOCACHE will also yield ordered results. What I'm interested in are internal differences in behavior. My assumption is that with ORDER oracle queries the instances directly, while NOCACHE will simply read/write everything from the disk.
On 2002.09.03 18:38 "Khedr, Waleed" wrote: > It looks like when option "ORDER" is used Oracle guarantees the generated > values will be in order since the "CACHE" option will be ignored by Oracle > even if it was requested. > > This is in the parallel mode. > > Look at note: Note:1031850.6 > > Waleed > > -----Original Message----- > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 6:00 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > > I'm managing an OPS configuration (4x HP 9000/N, HP-UX 11/64 , RDBMS > 8.1.7.1) > and I'm having an application dependency on a temporal order of sequence > numbers. > With OPS that becomes a problem because each node caches a set of sequence > numbers > (20 by default). Oracle has an option, specifically for that situation, > namely "ORDER". > My question is whether ORDER is the same thing as NOCACHE and whether it is > possible > to have a NOCACHE sequence which will return numbers in an incorrect order > (larger number > before the smaller one). > Please, o OPS gods and godesses, help me out and I'll sacrifice you a beer > when I see you. > Mladen Gogala > > -- Mladen Gogala -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Mladen Gogala INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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).
