If the sequence is not cached then Oracle has to generate a new sequence number for every record inserted (CPU cycles). NOORDER is the default so that won't slow you up. If you're doing bulk loads why not cache the sequence numbers? Is it important that there be no gaps? Even with NOCACHE you can get gaps. If a sequence number is generated but the row (insert or create) is not COMMITed the sequence number is not rolled back.
Unless there are fewer than 100 rows to be inserted I'd go with some caching. April Wells <awells To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> @csedge.com> cc: Sent by: root Subject: sequence numbers 10/09/2002 10:54 AM Please respond to ORACLE-L I have been given create scripts for sequences to be used in tables that will be loaded via bulk loads. How huge is the potential performance hit if I take out the cache 20? April Wells Oracle DBA There is neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so. -Shakespeare << Attachment Removed : InterScan_Disclaimer.txt >> -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Thomas Day 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).