UCH.COM> cc:
Sent by: Subject: RE: Re: Opinions of
high-volume DDL and data population
Sent by: cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Opinions of high-volume
DDL and data p
ents of list
ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Re: Opinions of
high-volume DDL and data population
, the
volumes involved absolutely collapsed. Nice surprise!
peter
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 16 June 2003 07:24
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Opinions of high-volume DDL and data population
>
>
Title: RE: Re: Opinions of high-volume DDL and data population
... now from an entirely different angle ...
Mark,
It just _might_ be better if you create a separate table to store the pk from your students table and the total_attendance column. Why? Not only this column adding will be
Mark - Exclusive access? Man, do you live right. Of course this probably
means a weekend. One advantage of the CTAS is the opportunity to turn off
logging. Also, leaving the existing table in-situ would be a nice fallback,
a great point with a 37-gig. table. If you are licensed for it, this table
i
I agree about the need for rebuilding. Your approach otherwise seems valid to me. That
said, if disk space is not a problem, can we assume safely that rollback space is no
problem either? In which case I would be quite tempted by taking a deep breath and try
to do it as a single 'Create table as
You should also rebuild the table afterwards because after adding a new
column, you'll have plenty of chained rows which are, as you are probably
aware, very bad thing indeed for application performance.
Rebuild is done by using "alter table move".
On 2003.06.16 02:24, Mark Richard wrote:
Hi List
Hi List,
I have been asked to add a column to a table and populate it's contents.
Conceptually this is very easy but I'm concerned from a performance point
of view. Let me explain:
* The table currently has 160,000,000 rows in it, taking up ~37 GB (~370 x
100 MB extents).
* The rule for populat
