Re: Rollback Segments vs direct=true/sqlldr

From: Connor McDonald <mcdonald.connor.cs_at_bhp.com.au>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:10:03 +0800
Message-ID: <36AAAB2B.661A@bhp.com.au>

andrea_johnson_at_wolfe.net wrote:
>
> Oracle 8.04 solaris
>
> I've had problems before using sqlldr with 'replace' in the ctl file--in that
> my rollback segments weren't able to extend sufficiently. I thought I could
> bypass the rollback segments using direct=true. But apparently the rollback
> segments still kick in with 'replace'.
>
> Is there any way to bypass rollback segments with sqlldr?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

"REPLACE" isn't really related directly to whether you use direct loader or not...

REPLACE is equivalent to "delete from table;" at the start of your run - hence the need for large rollback segments... The TRUNCATE keyword issues a "truncate table;" which is faster and won't need the rollback space...

HTH
--

---

Connor McDonald
BHP Information Technology
Perth, Western Australia
"The difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad"

• Salvador Dali

Received on Sat Jan 23 1999 - 23:10:03 CST