Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: Bulk loading partitioned tables slower than heap tables?

Re: Bulk loading partitioned tables slower than heap tables?

From: <ryan_gaffuri_at_comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:48:41 +0000
Message-Id: <062320061748.3726.449C2978000F30F500000E8E2207002953079D9A00000E09A1020E979D@comcast.net>

What kind of partitioning did you use? How did you spread out the partitions. did you have them in sepearte datafiles?

In the past I have had problems with full tablescanning hash partitioned tables if I did not use parallel slaves. It was slower than full scanning a heap table.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: amonte <ax.mount_at_gmail.com>
Hi

I was wondering if anyone has experience bulk loading data to partitioned tables? I have run some tests and running bulk load (insert append) into partitioned tables is actually 40% more costy. For example to load up a 80 million rows table it takes around 8 minutes whereas with plain heap table it only takes 5

Test used:
LMT with 16MB uniform size extent
No ASSM
Parallel DML
Parallel Query
Degree 16

Regards

Alex
--

http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Fri Jun 23 2006 - 12:48:41 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US