Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: Custom installations of Oracle9i/10g

Re: Custom installations of Oracle9i/10g

From: Adam Donahue <>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:12:02 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Hmm ... thinking about this a bit more, I suppose it could make sense in certain instances. For example, I could explain the SQL*Loader example below by assuming Oracle would need it for the creation of external tables. Another example I had was LDAP -- why would I need LDAP? Well, probably because possible authentication mechanisms could leverage it. Suddenly what seemed so 'easy' is a bit more complicated. Still -- 1.4 GB for all the components seems excessive.


Adam Donahue wrote:

>This has been puzzling me for some time. It seems so obvious, but I
>can't find any good information on how to do it.
>The question is, how does one tailor an Oracle installation down to
>its bare minimum -- /just/ the rdbms, no extras? Of course, I'm able
>to remove certain higher-level components, e.g., Enterprise Manager,
>but any attempt to remove most more specific components generates a
>dependency list that includes the core database software itself.
>For example, consider deinstalling SQL*Loader. This tool obviously
>requires Oracle 9i; but why would Oracle 9i in turn require it, more
>specifically, why is Oracle removed along with it?
>Say I select removal from the OUI:
> Oracle Homes ->
> oracleHome1 ->
> Oracle9i Database ->
> Oracle9i ->
> Oracle Database Utilities ->
> SQL*Loader <-- selected
>If I try now to deinstall SQL*Loader, by selecting it and it alone from
>the deinstallation menu, it creates a dependency list including the
>database executables themselves! Click "deinstall" and you end up
>deinstalling half the database software, leaving you with a very broken
>Oracle installation. Can this be prevented?
>Is there /any/ way to tailor an installation of Oracle9i at this level
>of granularity? How about Oracle10g?
>I'd hate to have to resort to removing individual files myself (and I'm
>sure it would break some support agreements, but this is mainly for
>internal testing at this point), but there is so much, um, crap,
>installed with 9i that 90% of it doesn't seem relevant to anything we're
>currently doing.
>The example above is for Standard Edition, but I've seen similar
>behavior with Enterprise Edition.

Received on Sat Oct 16 2004 - 18:07:36 CDT

Original text of this message