Re: Thumbs Up on Compression

From: jaromir nemec <jaromir_at_db-nemec.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:22:37 +0100
Message-ID: <007601c50377$d18edec0$3c02a8c0@JARAWIN>

Hi Ian,

to receive some level of objectivity, please perform the two remaining scenarios, i.e. compressed table with original index definition and uncompressed table with the reverse order of index columns. You can than compare distinctly what effect had the compression and what had the change of index.

I'd expect the pure effect of compression somewhere close to the ratio of the compressed and uncompressed storage.

Jaromir

Original Message ----- From: "MacGregor, Ian A." <ian_at_slac.stanford.edu> To: <oracle-l_at_freelists.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 6:10 PM Subject: Thumbs Up on Compression

I built a non-partitioned, uncompressed table with 709,652,582 rows and = indexed it with a non-compressed index on (timestamp, pv_id) with the = most restrictive column first.

--

http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Wed Jan 26 2005 - 02:25:14 CST