Re: Deletion Of 160 Million Rows.

Ryan Gaffuri wrote:

> wolfgang is right. I assumed downtime.

Even though the OP did say downtime was not allowed, I've seen similar to what you've seen: Management says "no downtime!" and when you cost it out, downtime suddenly doesn't seem so expensive. Taking some wild guesses from what I've seen with millions of records, the CTAS/nologging switcheroo and associated key reconstructions may take a couple of hours, versus the "bits of delete here and there" can project out to months, and still require index rebuilds. Either way, you still have backups, which will likely improve performance with some proper deletion. And the possibility exists that the table recreation alone may improve performance of an elderly table that's had who-knows-what done to it.

I read into the OP that management hasn't budgeted for the number of nines they expect.

Joel Garry
http://www.garry.to=20
=A0

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l