Re: most expeditious way to update a large number of rows

From: <mylesv_at_gmail.com>
Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:09:14 -0700
Message-ID: <1161054554.174569.266730@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

DA Morgan wrote:

> Unless my guess about your background is incorrect, you didn't respond
> to that part ... the question not relevant because the size of redo
> logs does not relate to the size of transactions.

Daniel,

Your guess about my background is partially correct. I've worked with Sybase and SQL Server in the past. I don't consider myself a DBA, I work _as_ a DBA. It's one of many things on my plate. That's (often) the reality of working for a small company.

With Brian's help, I estimated that my update would create 700+ MB of redo. You're saying that the size and number of redo log groups is irrelevant? It seems I'll see a log switch 13 or so times with my five 10 MB log groups.

If that's not the case, I won't even consider changing anything. In day to day use, the logs switch at ARCHIVE_LAG_TARGET rather than due to filling.

Thanks again,
Myles Received on Mon Oct 16 2006 - 22:09:14 CDT