Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: 90GB table on Windows 2000

Re: 90GB table on Windows 2000

From: John Summers <john.summers_at_medtronic.com>
Date: 1 Nov 2002 11:13:55 -0800
Message-ID: <5d76b757.0211011113.185a7f1d@posting.google.com>


It's good to hear I'm not breaking new ground on what I considered to be very basic (and long awaited) functionality.  Thanks also for the tidbit on 8.1.7.4... I'm currently prototyping it on 8.1.7.0 and Oracle support recommended moving to 8.1.7.3 (though they never can explain exactly why...). My boss gets particular about having a reason for upgrading.
 My situation is loading data from other Oracle servers at various facilities (manufacturing) worldwide. This new partitioned warehouse will be receiving about 1G of data per day. Originally (if Jonathan can recall my e-mails about 8-9 months ago), I was planning one big warehouse that would be on-line all the time for production purposes and exchange/transport monthly partitions after a year(and the partitions could be brought back at any time). Then I hit this constraint debacle where I discovered it would take us literally days to validate constraints... I played with the enable novalidate and rely for the work around, but in the end I canned the whole project and came up with a new solution that had a warehouse database, used only for analysis (not production), AND a smaller (3 month rolling non-partitioned) production database that can be on-line all the time. This allows the warehouse to go off-line somewhat and not impact production. It also allows me to strictly control how and when data is being transferred to the warehouse, makes constraints more optional, and lets me keep constraints enabled and validated all the time on the little database.
 Seems like a win-win... except for explaining to the boss why I pulled the plug on the old project and, oh yeah, the new project will need more instances $$ and how about buying more servers $$? Thanks for the info.
john

"Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<apmhhr$ola$1$8302bc10_at_news.demon.co.uk>...
> Sorry about leaving out the RELY all the way
> through - at least I remembered to include it
> at the end.
>
> The 'bug' is presumably related to the point that
> RELY exists to help the optimizer understand
> relationships between data - and therefore get
> the estimate somewhere in the right ballpark.
>
> Yes, I have done it, but the last time was on
> 8.1.6, on a Sun, loading 32 GB of data per day,
> and we had far more serious problems than
> just working out how to deal with dropping and
> exchanging partitions - most (if not all) of which
> have been fixed in 8.1.7.4
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Lewis
> http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
Received on Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:13:55 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US