Serge Rielau wrote:
> DA Morgan wrote:
>
>> Joel Garry wrote:
>>
>>> Keith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> How about this.... create a Pro/C program where you can pass the number
>>>> of instances you want to run -- say 100. Then the Pro/C program can
>>>> fork 100 times, connect to Oracle , and execute the procedure with
>>>> appropriate values for fromX and toY.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that not be any better, since Oracle is going to have to latch
>>> the system tables to serialize each table creation? Perhaps even much
>>> worse, as the latch queues grow and grow and... I think this would just
>>> be a grotesque denial of service attack, if it can even create that
>>> many processes. Then you'll deadlock as the underlying system tables
>>> need to extend (even LMT's given 500000 tables).
>>>
>>> Since some apps have tens of thousands of tables I don't think the
>>> requirement is _inherently_ ridiculous, but I don't think it can be
>>> sped up, either. And it might be ridiculous anyways, not enough detail
>>> to know.
>>>
>>> jg
>>> --
>>> @home.com is bogus.
>>> http://inquirer.stanford.edu/2005/jstaffor/woz.html
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sticking with inherently ridiculous until there is a better
>> explanation. ;-)
>>
>> In fact I'll up the ante. I say it is intrinsically, explicitly and
>> patently ridiculous.
>
> FWIW, I have seen a design recently requiring 1.5M stored procedures and
> 1M tables. (that's million,not milli :-)
> The SAP schema suddenly looks boring....
>
> Cheers
> Serge
Too bad the designers never took a class on set theory.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Received on Fri Dec 09 2005 - 14:42:52 CST
