Re: Remote or Local?

From: Dereck L. Dietz <dietzdl_at_ameritech.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:55:33 GMT
Message-ID: <VLDIi.722$6p6.714@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>

"hpuxrac" <johnbhurley_at_sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:1190331440.708533.107920_at_o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 20, 6:54 pm, "Dereck L. Dietz" <diet..._at_ameritech.net> wrote:
>> Oracle 10.2.0.3.0, Windows 2003 Server
>>
>> Two servers: Let's call server A "Lutsen" and server B "Annapurna".
>>
>> Scripts are located and executed on Lutsen to read/insert/update and
>> create
>> indexes on tables (a few 30+ and 80+ million rows in size) all located on
>> Annapurna.
>>
>> Since the tables being processed reside on Annapurna, shouldn't the code
>> that gets run also be located on Annapurna so that all the network
>> traffic
>> would be eliminated?
>>
>> Also, wouldn't having this situation cause extensive, and unnecessary
>> network traffic, which could greatly increase the time for the scripts to
>> finish?
>
> You can send the data over to the server where the database runs. Use
> external tables to define the structure then do insert into
> real_oracle_table select from external_table ...
>

The data that gets loaded into the Annapurna initially gets loaded into another staging schema on Annapurna. All the data is on Annapurna yet all the code to is located on Lutsen. Received on Thu Sep 20 2007 - 18:55:33 CDT