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: Index compression vs. table compression

Re: Index compression vs. table compression

From: Noons <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: 4 Jan 2005 12:29:26 -0800
Message-ID: <1104870566.505747.323500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>


Richard Foote wrote:
>
> For the RECYCLE pool therefore, the best candidates are large,
randomly
> access tables where blocks are unlikely to be reused by other
processes,
> *not* simply FTS tables as is often stated by Howard and others.

Another use is for application "temp" tables. By this I mean: in some instances (namely Peoplesoft apps), applications dump rows in intermediate tables with a userid on each row. These rows live for the duration of the transaction and are deleted at the end or by some background mechanism. Once used by a given transaction, the rows are essentialy useless for anyone else. It is therefore desirable that they use the least possible resources. RECYCLE is the correct cache for those tables.
Yes we all know about temporary tables. But does Peoplesoft know about them? Received on Tue Jan 04 2005 - 14:29:26 CST

Original text of this message

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