Re: Oracle Myth II - ??

My initial tests proved pretty much what I thought. I copied a 1,000,000 row 300m table across a database link with a single insert statement. It took 97 seconds.

After truncating the destination table, I ran two inserts simultaneously selecting from the same source and inserting into the same destination. The first insert copied all of the even numbered IDs while the second one did the odd numbered ID's. It took 65 seconds.

The platform used was Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3 on both ends of the link. The two databases were on two different servers connected by TCP/IP over a 100mb ethernet.

--
Chuck

"Chuck" <chuckh_at_softhome.net> wrote in message
news:alaq5q$1mvtdu$1_at_ID-85580.news.dfncis.de...


> Without testing it, off the top of my head I would say yes, there probably

> is a performance benefit. With any type of i/o whether it be disk or

 network


> based, there is some time spent in overhead. That time could be used for

> parallel i/o processing to take place.

>

> I will do a small test on a table with a few hundred meg and post results

 if


> anyone is interested.

> --

> Chuck

>

> "Ed Stevens" <spamdump_at_nospam.noway.nohow> wrote in message

> news:3d78bd02.64028267_at_ausnews.austin.ibm.com...

> > Some time ago we had a very interesting and informative thread on Oracle

 myths,


> > mostly centering on tablespace fragmentation and number of extents as a

 function


> > of performance.

> >

> > I have a question about another possible myth, though I've never seen

 any


> > discussion on the subject, either pro or con.

> >

> > The question is:  If one needs to move large quantities of data through

 a
 db


> > link, is there any performance advantage (supposedly from

 parallelization)
 of


> > splitting the work through 2 separate links?  Do 2 links represent a

 2-lane


> > road, or simply two different ramps onto a single lane road?   If there

 would be


> > a performance gain, how would an application actually implement it?

> >

> > Platform is Oracle EE 7.1.3 on Win2K.  The two databases involved would

 be
 on


> > different boxes.

> > --

> > Ed Stevens

> > (Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer.)

>

>