Re: RE: Index-Organized Table experiences

From: zhu chao <chao_ping_at_vip.163.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:21:21 +0800
Message-ID: <011101c42d88$47ebe2a0$2552fc0a@corp.ebay.com>

IOT table is an index, so there is no problem using it on a high activity table.
I have a table with 2 Columns, heavily updated everyday(around 10M updates/day) and performance is excellent. I later partitioned the table so that removing the old data is easier.

The tricky is the overflow segment. It is still heap organized. Secondary index on IOT table is ok(at least in 8.1.7). But as the clustering factor of the IOT table, range scan-urowid on secondary table is less efficient.

Regards
Zhu Chao.

Original Message ----- From: <ryan.gaffuri_at_cox.net> To: <oracle-l_at_freelists.org> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 3:56 AM Subject: RE: RE: Index-Organized Table experiences

> How well do you feel IOTs hold up under significant DML activity? I know
what is in the docs. Anyone have significant problems? Better or worse than have a table with all columns in one index?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
> put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
> --
> Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
> FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Wed Apr 28 2004 - 20:18:26 CDT