Re: Creating 100,000+ tables.

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:40:21 -0800
Message-ID: <1134085222.570785@jetspin.drizzle.com>

Joel Garry wrote:
> Keith wrote:
>
>

>>How about this.... create a Pro/C program where you can pass the number
>>of instances you want to run -- say 100.  Then the Pro/C program can
>>fork 100 times, connect to Oracle  , and execute the procedure with
>>appropriate values for fromX and toY.

>
>
> Wouldn't that not be any better, since Oracle is going to have to latch
> the system tables to serialize each table creation? Perhaps even much
> worse, as the latch queues grow and grow and... I think this would just
> be a grotesque denial of service attack, if it can even create that
> many processes. Then you'll deadlock as the underlying system tables
> need to extend (even LMT's given 500000 tables).
>
> Since some apps have tens of thousands of tables I don't think the
> requirement is _inherently_ ridiculous, but I don't think it can be
> sped up, either. And it might be ridiculous anyways, not enough detail
> to know.
>
> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> http://inquirer.stanford.edu/2005/jstaffor/woz.html

I'm sticking with inherently ridiculous until there is a better explanation. ;-)

In fact I'll up the ante. I say it is intrinsically, explicitly and patently ridiculous.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

Received on Thu Dec 08 2005 - 17:40:21 CST