Re: alter table move

The nologging|logging option is about to write or not transaction to redlogs. At least i think it is.
PS: I would like to thanks to Howard for his advices. I moved those tables today after few corection of redlogfiles because of advice of heavy IO load and i hope everytining is correct. Forgive for my lack of information about some data that were important - this is my first post and i'm not familiar with current habbits.

K.Kryczka

User "Andre van Winssen (andrew)" <andrew-no-spam-svp_at_info.nl> wrote in news:aa5u1h$nqe$1_at_news1.xs4all.nl...
> Well, in my 8.1.7.3 (AIX) I can do
> alter table http_status_detail move tablespace stsd nologging;
>
> I can't tell you the exact impact of NOLOGGING in this particular case
> if the instance crashes while this operation is going on but it works fast
> enough for me when the instance doesn't crash :-)
>
> regards,
> Andre van Winssen
>
>
> "Howard J. Rogers" <dba_at_hjrdba.com> wrote in message
> news:aa3284$189$1_at_lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > You originally asked for, and I quote, "Any sugested additional
> > options/parameters?". Strangely enough, parameters and options are one
of
> > the few things absolutely guaranteed to change between versions. Why you
> > would think version information optional therefore beats me. Why you
think
> > someone asking for it is "strict", beats me. Why you think that
"support"
> > needs different information from "advice" beats me: after all, support
is
> > only the offering of advice to achieve an outcome, whereas advice is the
> > offering of advice with no particular outcome in mind. Both still
involve
> > offering advice (and if support is any good, it'll be the same advice).
> >
> > So one's Oracle version is not optional, and if we say it often enough,
> > perhaps posters here might eventually get the message.
> >
> > As for your original post, I can't really work out what you're after. I
> have
> > experience with moving mult-million row tables online. It's not
> particularly
> > pleasant, but DML on the table at least is possible during the rebuild.
> > There are, of course, massive amounts of disk I/O taking place, and you
> can
> > expect the I/O induced to partially cripple work done elsewhere on the
> > database (one grudging reason why indexes might need their own
> > tablespace/hard disk drive, Daniel!). You do need to have room to build
> the
> > IOT that holds the DML that will be played against the index to bring it
> up
> > to date. You also need to have room to have two versions of the index
> > concurrently (albeit briefly), though that's nothing new and was a
> > requirement for any index rebuild going back to version dot. As to
> > additional parameters or options, there are none so far as I can think
of.
> > It just happens. Think of it as a free gift from Oracle, which doesn't
> > happen very often (call me cynical!).
> >
> > Online rebuilds require an exclusive lock momentarily on the table when
> they
> > start, and when they want to finish. Therefore, table locking hasn't
gone
> > away entirely, and that might cause your Users a bit of grief. Hence
> > Oracle's somewhat perverse advice not to online rebuild indexes on
tables
> > which are subject to heavy amounts of DML -which are probably, of
course,
> > exactly the tables that you might have thought this feature was invented
> > for!
> >
> > With higher versions of Oracle, additional types of indexes can be
rebuilt
> > online (such as function-based indexes, reverse keys and so on), but
there
> > are no fundamental changes to the basic way an online rebuild takes
place,
> > and the "no heavy DML" advice is pretty much the same.
> >
> > If there are any more specific queries about this, let us know and I
(and
> > I'm sure the others) will do my best.
> >
> > Regards
> > HJR
> >
> > "Krzysztof Kryczka" <kryczus_at_rpg.pl> wrote in message
> > news:aa2vct$rvm$1_at_news.tpi.pl...
> > > version 8.1.6.1.0 EE
> > > but dont be so strict like support - i'm just looking for advices not
> > > solution
> > >
> > > User "Bricklen Anderson" <bricklen_at_shaw.ca> wrote
> > > news:3CC4A312.A8F39E9_at_shaw.ca...
> > > > I think you missed the part about what version of Oracle are you
> running
> > > > (rather crucial for a useful response).
> > > >
> > > > Krzysztof Kryczka wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ok - if you want detail you can have it:
> > > > > handware Dell PowerEdge6400
> > > > > OS is Win2000AS
> > > > > large for me is:
> > > > > sum(bytes) from dba_extents is about 1.2G
> > > > > sum(blocks) from dba_extents is about 7000
> > > > > any more details?
> > > > >
> > > > > i have about 4 tables like that and have to reorganize their
storage
> > > online
> > > (....)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 24 2002 - 14:49:46 CDT