Re: Bulk loading partitioned tables slower than heap tables?

Hi Ryan

The table is hash partitioned into 16 partitions. The tablespace has 16 datafiles. The degree used is 16.

The problems seems with Parallel DML, when I stopped using Parallel DML the HW space management lock which I had contention with disappeared.

Does anyone know how HW enqueue works?

On 6/23/06, ryan_gaffuri_at_comcast.net <ryan_gaffuri_at_comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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