Re: Nologging clause

From: Jared Still <jkstill_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:31:41 -0700
Message-ID: <bf46380904011131o60f78403n445ceb22b2ae07b6_at_mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Bobak, Mark <Mark.Bobak_at_proquest.com>wrote:

> Bill,
>
> No, updates and deletes will *always* log. If you think about how direct
> path works, and why it's restricted to the operations it's restricted to, it
> sort of makes sense. Without getting into all the gory details, direct path
> can do nologging and get away with it, cause when it's doing inserts, it's
> doing them into brand new, never before used blocks, that do *not* already
> contain data. Therefore, rollback is simply a de-allocation of those blocks
> from the segment. In the case of 'delete from tab1 where col_a = 32;',
> well, what if the affected block has rows w/ col_a values of 30-39 in it?
> You're *only* deleting the row where col_a = 32. So, the remaining data in
> the block *must* be protected by redo! If you do a direct path insert, do a
> million inserts, all those rows are guaranteed to be inserted into freshly
> allocated empty blocks, so, "rollback" consists of simply de-allocating
> those blocks. There are no other rows in the block that would get caught up
> in the roll
> back and lost.
>

Which also explains why no-logging INSERTs must include the APPEND hint.

Jared

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

Received on Wed Apr 01 2009 - 13:31:41 CDT