Re: Deletion Of 160 Million Rows.
- From: "Joel Garry" <joelgarry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ryan_gaffuri@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:04:51 -0800
Ryan Gaffuri wrote:
> wolfgang is right. I assumed downtime.
Even though the OP did say downtime was not allowed, I've seen similar
to what you've seen: Management says "no downtime!" and when you cost
it out, downtime suddenly doesn't seem so expensive. Taking some wild
guesses from what I've seen with millions of records, the CTAS/nologging
switcheroo and associated key reconstructions may take a couple of
hours, versus the "bits of delete here and there" can project out to
months, and still require index rebuilds. Either way, you still have
backups, which will likely improve performance with some proper
deletion. And the possibility exists that the table recreation alone
may improve performance of an elderly table that's had who-knows-what
done to it.
I read into the OP that management hasn't budgeted for the number of
nines they expect.
Joel Garry
http://www.garry.to=20
=A0
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
