Re: 10g data pump question

On Nov 24, 8:22 am, Chuck <chuckh1958_nos..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> joel garry wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 9:16 am, Chuck <chuckh1958_nos..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> DA Morgan wrote:
> >>> Chuck wrote:
> >>>> Why is it that when I run a data pump operation with PARALLEL > 1, I
> >>>> only ever see one worker EXECUTING and the state for all the others is
> >>>> WORK WAITING? What would cause that?
> >>>> TIA
> >>> My guess is that the reason is you have the syntax incorrect.
> >>> What likely you intended is:
> >>> parallel => 2
> >>> which is a named notation assignment of a value.
> >> My OP wasn't intended to show syntax, just that I've set PARALLEL to
> >> something greater than 1. The actual syntax is below (taken from a shell
> >> script)
>
> >> impdp / DIRECTORY=$DIRECTORY \
> >>   LOGFILE=$LOG_FILE_NAME \
> >>   NETWORK_LINK=IMPDP_${SOURCE_DB} \
> >>   SCHEMAS=${SOURCE_SCHEMA} \
> >>   REMAP_SCHEMA=${SOURCE_SCHEMA}:${TARGET_SCHEMA} \
> >>   PARALLEL=4
>
> >> Just seems like 3 of the 4 workers are pretty lazy and I wonder if
> >> there's any real benefit to setting parallel gt 1.
>
> > How many files do you have in the dump?
>
> None. If you check the syntax of the impdp command I provided, it was a
> database to database datapump. No files were involved.

Yep, I missed it. I guess you've shown parallel is silly with network_link.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
Bush joins Peruvian flute band:  http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/poncho.jpg