Re: What is different between sql*load(direct=y) and insert /+*append */

I also believe that 'direct load' ignores any constraints , I'm not sure about appends..

"M Hashim" <m.a.n.hashim_at_sympatico.ca> wrote:

>clickstream data....yikes!
>
>Note also, with "direct load" I don't think you could manipulate the data
>with any FUNCTIONS as it's being loaded - which you can do otherwise.
>
>
>"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>news:Q3nm9.44168$g9.126416_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>> Both tools load data into tables above the high watermark, and only move
>the
>> high watermark above the 'data line' at the end of the operation (when you
>> commit or SQL Loader does a data save). Since data is above the high
>> watermark for the duration of the load, using either tool, it is
>impossible
>> to read that data (that's what the HWM's job is, after all: telling full
>> table scans when to stop looking for data).
>>
>> If it's impossible to read the data, then there is no need for either tool
>> to generate rollback, which is (putting it simply) only needed for the
>> purposes of constructing read-consistent images of the data *for other
>> Users' benefit*. They can't see the data, therefore they don't need
>> read-consistent images of it, therefore no rollback.
>>
>> So far, so similar.
>>
>> The difference between the two tools is what happens on indexes. SQL
>Loader
>> Direct Loads don't update indexes. Append inserts do. Which means that
>> insert appends are required to generate rollback on the indexes, because
>the
>> changes it makes to them during the insert operation *are* visible to
>other
>> users, and hence they need to roll them back for read-consistency
>purposes.
>>
>> Regards
>> HJR
>>
>> "David" <dhs_69_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7e64a3ea.0210011044.706e0261_at_posting.google.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > We used to use sql*load with direct=y option to load
>> > our clickstream data,in order to get better performance,
>> > we recently use " insert /+* append */ "
>> > approach, but we got "rollback segment too small" error.
>> >
>> > how sql*load never got this problem ? what is the different
>> > between two approachs in oracle?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > David
>>
>>
>

-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------

   http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =----- Received on Wed Oct 02 2002 - 10:12:30 CDT