Subject:Re: Which method is more efficient
oh i missed part of it. the question is how do you figure out which fields
have changed? if you have to do an anti-join on each field, then do an
update of every field.
the question is how will you determine which fields have changed?
>
>
ROTECTED]
05/29/2003 10:24 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Which method is more efficient
Jared,
Agreed, but what about the resources needs to find _which_ column changed
??
t ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Which method is more efficient
>
> Jared,
>
> Agreed, but what about the resources needs to find _which_ column changed ??
> Would that offset the extra redo generated? Heck, I'd just generate the
> update statements based
recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: RE: Which method is more efficient
>
> Yes, I am in archive log mode and I have had 2 occurances of filling up the
> archive log filesystem, but I don't want to change one problem for another.
>
> Bryan
pond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Which method is more efficient
Jared,
Agreed, but what about the resources needs to find _which_ column changed
?? Would that offset the extra redo generated? Heck,
Title: RE: Which method is more efficient
Jared,
Agreed, but what about the resources needs to find _which_ column changed ?? Would that offset the extra redo generated? Heck, I'd just generate the update statements based on two tables to _only_ update the changed columns. It is pretty
, Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/05/28 Wed PM 02:40:25 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: RE: Which method is more efficient
>
> The fields that are changed are determined by
> 1) A loop would start until all r
TED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/28/2003 09:59 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:RE: Which method is more efficient
Bryan - If this is a critical issue, I would try it both w
oh it wasnt none, it was cut in half. I skimmed it.
my bad
> From: Richard Foote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/05/29 Thu AM 08:45:46 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Which method is more efficient
>
>
>
:45:46 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Which method is more efficient
>
>
> - Original Message -
> To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:14
- Original Message -
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:14 AM
> 1. to totally eliminate redo, load your staging records into a global temp
table. it has absolutely no redo and is very fast.
Hi
The above is not quite true. Globa
===
DENNIS WILLIAMS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/28/2003 09:59 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:RE: Which method is more efficient
Bryan - If
Title: RE: RE: Which method is more efficient
And
with CTAS you can specify nologging to minimize redo generation. "Cloning" a
table, renaming/dropping the source, and renaming the clone to the production
table could be interesting. You would have to recreate indexes.
---
Title: RE: RE: Which method is more efficient
Bryan,
Can you ...
create table my_work_table as
select * from changed_parts_table
minus
select * from existing_parts_table
/
The result will give you all the rows where _something_ is different between your existing table and changed table
?
>
> From: "Rodrigues, Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/05/28 Wed PM 02:40:25 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: RE: Which method is more efficient
>
> The fields that are changed are determined by
> 1)
]>
> Date: 2003/05/28 Wed PM 12:59:51 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Which method is more efficient
>
> Bryan - If this is a critical issue, I would try it both ways on a test
> database and use log miner to examine the am
]>
> Date: 2003/05/28 Wed PM 12:59:51 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Which method is more efficient
>
> Bryan - If this is a critical issue, I would try it both ways on a test
> database and use log miner to examine the am
Bryan,
First item is to define "efficient". Are you looking for efficiency in the
update of data on the production database or the standby? The code needed to
determine which columns need updating is going to be a real bear and could create
several update statements per record. On th
Bryan - If this is a critical issue, I would try it both ways on a test
database and use log miner to examine the amount of redo that is generated.
My recollection is that you will find that the redo record records the
before and after data for each field. So just updating all fields may
generate s
1. to totally eliminate redo, load your staging records into a global temp table. it
has absolutely no redo and is very fast.
2. if your in 9i, use an external table and a merge command and update the table
directly from the file. dont even load the records to a staging table. Do a search for
Title: RE: Which method is more efficient
I vote for the whole record, you'd be spending more time and resources in finding _which_ field has changed.
Raj
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot com
All
21 matches
Mail list logo
