I think 9202 doesn't like to export compressed tables in direct mode ... so watch out for that ... I implemented, tested and next day reverted back to regular tables due to this export issue. Disk is cheap.
A BAARF party member wannabe !!
Raj
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot com
All Views expressed in this email are strictly personal.
QOTD: Any clod can have facts, having an opinion is an art !
-----Original Message-----
From: Mogens Nørgaard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10:05 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: Oracle Compress Option
"Compress to impress?" by Julian Dyke is a good presentation on this
topic (see for instance http://www.ukoug.org/calendar/jan03/jan30ab.htm).
I do have the article - 202 K with no compression, 147 K with
compression :).
Let me know if you're interested, and I'll email it directly to you.
Mogens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Does anybody has any experience with Oracle 9I compression option. I did some test on 9202 with a table of more 14 million rows. Table has total 7 indexes. Surprising both table and indexes are using more space after compression. Before compression space used is 13064MB and after compression 13184MB. In both the cases I did export from source table and stored in two different tablespaces. Any insight on that and any disadvantages of using that.
>
>Thanks
********************************************************************This e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify corporate MIS at (860) 766-2000 and delete this e-mail message from your computer, Thank you.*********************************************************************2
