Re: Direct Path Export vs. Conventional Path Export

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:50:53 -0500, "Burton Peltier" <burttemp1REMOVE_THIS_at_bellsouth.net> wrote:

>I recently switched our export backups to direct path and was impressed at
>the performance boost.
>
>I did not set the recordlength (or buffer before with conventional path) and
>still am seeing a significant boost in performance. The docs mention these
>settings to boost performance.
>
>In every case, the direct path is at least twice as fast and sometimes 3
>times faster than the conventional path.
>
>I assume I am missing something here because this seems too good to be true,
>so I looked up this in the docs.
>
>I don't see any disadvantage other than you must use the same character set
>for the client exp session as the database character set, which I always do
>anyway.
>
>Anyone have experience with this and can comment good or bad on direct path?

direct bypasses the sql-layer. So consistent=yes wouldn't work. Tables with LOBs are exported in conventional mode anyway, and it seems direct doesn't apply to any post 8.0 object. You would also need to retrieve NLS_LANG from the database to be able to use export in direct mode.
Both appear to be too serious limitations not to bother about direct unless absolutely necessary

Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

To reply remove -verwijderdit from my e-mail address Received on Tue Sep 02 2003 - 02:12:36 CDT