Re: LONG ROW performence problems

It may make a difference but only because of odd side-effects. The data in the format N x raw(2000) isn't really likely to be any closer to the key than it would be if you stored it as long raw.

Ideally you ought to move to Oracle 8.1 and stored the thing as a LOB, which removes some of the worse update side-effects you can get with longs, however if you stay at 7 your best bet is to rebuild your database with a 16K block size

As a general guideline, when handling longs it is a good idea to include an extra column in front of the long which holds the size in bytes of the long column. This is very helpful when trying to do some analysis of where the storage space is going.

--

Jonathan Lewis
Yet another Oracle-related web site: http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk

Hope wrote in message <37dfbc75.27833822_at_88.0.3.103>...
>Hi All
>
>I have this problem
>I need to store a file containing a key and a variable length record
>in a table
>The record length can get up to 32K but the avarage is 8-12K
>
>
>
>My current definition is:
>KEY1 RAW(12) NOT NULL,
>FLD1 LONG RAW
>I'm fetching the LONG RAW data using oflng()
>
>The problem is that my users complain it's too slow
>
>The solution I'm considering now is to define a row like this:
>KEY1 RAW(12),
>FLD1 RAW(2000),
>FLD2 RAW(2000),
>. . . .
>FLD16 RAW(2000)
>and fill the unused raw fields with NULL
>
>This solution assures the fields are all stored together with trhe
>table unlike the LONG RAW which may be stored elsewhere.
>
>Is there a better or simpler solution?
>
>Shaya
Received on Wed Sep 15 1999 - 11:00:49 CDT