Re: DBLINK vs MV replication question

Gerard Lacroix (kochel_verz_at_yahoo.com) wrote:
: Hi everyone.

: We need to replicate some tables from a remote 8i db running in a
: Solaris box, to my 9.2.0.6 wich also runs on Solaris. The replicated
: tables are for read only purposes. The base tables have 7 millons rows
: aprox.

: I=B4d like to hear your opinions, regarding wich method is best, as the
: DBA says it doesn't worth using read-only materialed views, because we
: can achieve same results using just a dblink, and replicating the
: tables in our local db with
: 'create table as select * from emp_at_remotedb'

: Having read Advanced Replication and Datawarehousing Guide manuals, I
: did not find such recommendation, so I wonder if you can give some
: arguments against the DBA=B4s, or else why he is right. Some simple
: comparison between both techniques will be appreciated.

: Thanks a lot.(sorry for my english)

A materialized view without the snapshot logs will simply do the same thing as above, so a mat view must be at least as good as that.

BUT
- the mat view update can be automated with no additional effort - the mat view update can be optimized so it transfers less data

So unless there's some big problem from the DBA's end then I can't imagine why they would not use them.

A "big problem" might be the need to buy a license (no idea, I doubt it), or an upgrade of something is required and this replication is not important enough to warrant the work or expense of such an upgrade.

Perhaps you already have a custom replication procedure for other data transfers already being done. Then it might make sense to just add the new table to the existing setups.

--

This programmer available for rent.