Re: performance of sql loader

2003-06-02 Thread Stephen Andert
Regarding #2, you also need to be aware of how parameters interact with each other. For example in non-direct loads, ROWS and BINDSIZE work hand-in-hand. Increasing one but not the other (or not enough) will bottleneck and it will use a smaller array to load. Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/30/03

performance of sql loader

2003-05-31 Thread rgaffuri
I was talking to some colleagues and they did the following tests. I was wondering if anyone else had similiar results or maybe they just didnt do it properly. They are using standard SQLLOADER. No direct path inserts and doing some SQL data manipulation of the files. They found the following:

Re: performance of sql loader

2003-05-31 Thread Jared Still
On Friday 30 May 2003 12:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. SQLLOADER with the SQL manipulation is much slower than Direct Path SQLLOADER to a staging table, then insert,update, and delete to the master table. Sounds about right. It's been awhile since making heavy use of SQL Loader, but DIRECT