Re: Direct Path Export vs. Conventional Path Export

"Burton Peltier" <burttemp1REMOVE_THIS_at_bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:8jV4b.4779$UF.3526_at_bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> 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?
>

There is a serious bug; certain versions (817X, 9XXX?) on certain platforms create a corrupt dump file - that cannot be imported - if a table is exported via direct path that contains either chained or migrated rows. This is easily reproducible and should be tested before using direct path export.

Regards... Received on Tue Sep 02 2003 - 06:28:59 CDT