It's not very good idea about a bigger rollback segment!!!
Use PL/SQL-block, for example:
DECLARE
cursor c1 is select .....;
i number := 0;
k number := 500; -- commit frequence
BEGIN
FOR rec IN c1 LOOP
i := i + 1;
insert into toto values (rec.c1, rec.c2 ....);
IF MOD(i,k)=0 THEN
i := 0;
commit;
END IF;
END LOOP;
commit;
END;
frank_delisle_at_hotmail.com ÐÉÛÅÔ × ÓÏÏÂÝÅÎÉÉ
<787dv9$iik$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com> ...
>Just use a bigger rollback segment!!!
>In article <78571l$o58$1_at_smilodon.ecp.fr>,
> riad_at_innocent.ANTI-SPAM.ORG wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I have some inserts (insert into toto values(...) select ....) that are
pretty huge.
>> usually, they explode the rollbacks (the table is indexed by two indexes,
which
>> make the charge heavier on the rollback).
>> So what I do, I insert into this table by chunks of 10000 rows.
>>
>> But I would like to know if there is some simple way to avoiding using
rollbacks
>> during some inserts (like NOLOGGING avoid using logs) ????
>>
>> I don't care if the information would not be restorable, because if
something wrong
>> happens, I know eaxctly which rows I remove (referenced by a date).
>>
>> So any suggestions ?
>>
>> thanks in advance.
>> Riad
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> To email, replace the "ANTI-SPAM.ORG" by "com"
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>
>Frank Delisle
>Consultant, Eds Québec
>e-mail: francois.delisle_at_prosig.qc.ca
>"Un problème sans solution n'est pas un problème"
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Received on Thu Jan 21 1999 - 17:00:29 CST
