RE: performance impact of archivelog

From: Claudia Zeiler <>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:21:17 -0800
Message-ID: <B47109E95A4F8C4AB42CC4D4169D997B14639E715D@ecsrm01.ecwise.local>

So far I have no more info.

In my thinking, 180G of redo log generation is already the strain on the system, and 180g of archivelog generation is just a background cleanup process that shouldn't affect the database. But I don't know facts at all. Maybe my assumption will cause someone to tell us that I am totally wrong, and "here's why.". That would be a start in trying to figure this out. I suspect that the answer involves a table with a name that starts like 'k$xz...'.

Please let me know if you learn anything. I have the same issue as you. Thanks,
Claudia Zeiler

From: Renato M [] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 7:18 AM
Cc: Claudia Zeiler; Subject: Re: performance impact of archivelog

Hi, list.

I'm with the same doubt...
We have a Data Warehouse database in "no archivelog" mode with 180GB/day of redo generation.

because of a new backup solution/ strategie, we need put it in "archivelog ON".

Have you any other information about it ?

Thanks a lot!

Renato Gomes
Eds, an HP Company.

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Roberts, David (GSD - UK) <<>> wrote: 1. Performance cost of running in archivelog mode.

We take our database out of archive log mode for a yearly batch process. Very roughly the dry run (which is run on a different but similarly specked machine in archive log mode) takes about 20% longer.

Obviously as the difference is going to be dependent on how much change is going on, your mileage may vary.

David Roberts<>

Logica UK Limited
Registered in England and Wales (registered number 947968) Registered office: Stephenson House, 75 Hampstead Road, London NW1 2PL, United Kingdom

-----Original Message-----

From:<> [<>] On Behalf Of Claudia Zeiler Sent: 15 November 2008 21:27
To:<> Subject: performance impact of archivelog

Has anyone on the list seen a discussion of

  1. performance cost of running in archivelog mode.
  2. overhead of using partitions
  3. time calculation to perform statistics
  4. time savings of using statistics

I always see these things discussed in terms of "more" but never in terms of "how much".

Thanks for any information that you can point me to.

Claudia Zeiler


This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.


-- Received on Mon Nov 17 2008 - 09:21:17 CST

Original text of this message