Return-Path: <oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org>
Delivered-To: 2-oracle-l@orafaq.com
Received: (qmail 2436 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2006 22:14:58 -0600
Received: from freelists-180.iquest.net (HELO turing.freelists.org) (206.53.239.180)
  by 69.64.49.119 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2006 22:14:58 -0600
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 0CCAF291FAB;
 Thu,  2 Feb 2006 23:14:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 14373-05; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 23:14:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 8BDC22916E9;
 Thu,  2 Feb 2006 23:14:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:14:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 903F7291E7B
 for <oracle-l@freelists.org>; Thu,  2 Feb 2006 23:14:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 14323-06 for <oracle-l@freelists.org>;
 Thu, 2 Feb 2006 23:14:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.201])
 by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with SMTP id 204C52915B9
 for <oracle-l@freelists.org>; Thu,  2 Feb 2006 23:14:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 30564 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2006 04:14:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO porgand) (tanel@btinternet.com@200.33.188.60 with login)
  by smtp811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2006 04:14:40 -0000
Message-ID: <130c01c62878$5887d000$c6bc21c8@porgand>
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tanel_P=F5der?= <tanel.poder.003@mail.ee>
To: "ORACLE-L" <oracle-l@freelists.org>
References: <7ED53A68952D3B4C9540B4EFA5C76E360165826D@CWYMSX04.Corp.Acxiom.net> <d6f0def50602021606i3fefcad9y2d5b6f0b97efd42c@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Index compression on Oracle 9.2
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:14:32 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed;	charset="iso-8859-1";	reply-type=original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-archive-position: 30742
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org
Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org
X-original-sender: tanel.poder.003@mail.ee
Precedence: normal
Reply-To: tanel.poder.003@mail.ee
X-list: oracle-l
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net

> However a direct path write useful more often then compressed tables.

It depends where you're standing - a DW DBA or someone having to deal with 
lots of audit data stored over long period of time would rank table 
compression quite high. OLTP DBAs don't have any value

Tanel.

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l


