Re: Excessive archvelog creation

I agree with both Mark and Mladen about testing.

Be aware that features of securefiles (compression, deduplication) do require licensing advanced compression. Also, securefiles are a mixed blessing with e-Business Suite (at least in my case), I had significantly more wasted space and growth with securefiles than with basicfiles.

--
Michael Brown
dba_at_michael-brown.org
http://www,ebs-dba.com <http://www,ebs-dba.com/>




> On Sep 7, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Mark W. Farnham <mwf_at_rsiz.com> wrote:

> 

> clarification:

> 

> old way == basicfiles

> new way == securefiles


> 

> and NO, securefiles does NOT require extra licensing despite a long standing rumor that it requires advanced security.

> 

> mwf

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Mark W. Farnham

> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 10:31 AM

> To: gogala.mladen_at_gmail.com; oracle-l_at_freelists.org

> Subject: RE: Excessive archvelog creation

> 

> ... And (implying agreement with Mladen on this) when you test, be sure all the DDL about that column DATA is exactly the same. (Presumably you need to create a test table to test this on your exact system with your code in place of the application code.)

> 

> And probably check getlength before and after some number of updates and track whether the redo generation per update of the same size continues to rise.

> 

> Which sort of storage are you using for the clob? (Just a question. And I don't mean the physical storage. There is an old way to store CLOBs from the Oracle software point of view and a completely revised way that is much superior in many ways. Whether or not the application which you may not control uses the old way is a useful question.)

> 

> mwf

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Mladen Gogala

> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 7:43 AM

> To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org

> Subject: Re: Excessive archvelog creation

> 

> Peter, the only real way to find out is to test.  That sounds like an interesting thing to test. Please, let us know what you  found out, once you're done testing.

> Regards

> 

> 

> On 09/06/2017 02:27 PM, Schauss, Peter [US] (ES&CSO) wrote:

>> So my questions are:
>> 
>> 1. If the application was adding the data with CONCAT in small increments, say 100 characters at a time, would this account for the large volume of redo that we saw?
>> 
>> 2. If the application had added the 48 mb all at once would it have generated less redo?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Peter
>> --
>> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>> 
>> 


> 

> --

> Mladen Gogala

> Oracle DBA

> http://mgogala.freehostia.com

> 

> --

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

> 

> 

> --

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

> 

> 

> --

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

> 

> 



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