Note in-line
--
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
The educated person is not the person
who can answer the questions, but the
person who can question the answers -- T. Schick Jr
One-day tutorials:
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/tutorial.html
____Finland__September 22nd - 24th
____Norway___September 25th - 26th
____UK_______December (UKOUG conference)
Three-day seminar:
see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html
____USA__October
____UK___November
The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
"Stan" <stan0074_at_remove_this.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3F6CCA22.20803_at_remove_this.comcast.net...
> Jonathan Lewis wrote:
> > (assuming no indexes)
> > When you delete a row the row plus about 80
> > bytes of overhead gets put into the undo. A
> > few bytes of change are made to the data block
> > (deleted flag, ITL entry).
> >
> > The redo then contains a record consisting of
> > two change vectors - each with an overhead
> > of about 80 bytes. One change vector describes
> > the change to the data block, and the other change
> > vector describes the change to the redo block,
============================^^^^^^
> > which include the detail of the deleted row.
>
> Just for clarification, you meant by undo block and not redo block
on
> the 2nd change vector do you.
>
Yes - and I've highlighted the error to make
it extremely obvious what we are talking about.
Received on Sat Sep 20 2003 - 17:10:16 CDT
