Re: Segment management auto clause

From: Richard Foote <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 00:37:12 +1000
Message-ID: <7s6xa.35601$1s1.515384@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>

"Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:b9vgq2$mu3$1$830fa79d_at_news.demon.co.uk...
>
> I should, of course, also have said that I am
> delighted that you published your test method.
>

Hi Jonathan,

Something I wanted to compare was the performance of the same table in real conditions with/without ASSM.

My "cheat method" of partially achieving this with in a nice simplistic manner is to do the following.

Move the table to reorganise it (to make it nice and fresh for comparison purposes)
Create a materialized view log
Create a materialized view on the non assm table in an assm tablespace.
Fast refresh on demand

Although I can't compare insert performance, I can compare my others main areas of interest, FTS performance, storage ramifications, bitmap block characteristics, etc. (will focus more of memory usage/caching as well).

It ain't pretty and it ain't exactly a documented usage of MVs, but I am finding out some really interesting results and comparisons.

Cheers

Richard Received on Fri May 16 2003 - 09:37:12 CDT