Re: Index compression on Oracle 9.2
- From: Ram K <lambu999@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Dave.Herring@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 14:46:19 -0500
Dave,
Did you notice any performance difference on the compressed tables.ie. Was
it taking longer than before because it has to uncompress.
Thanks
On 2/2/06, Herring Dave - dherri <Dave.Herring@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > By my opinion the feature is absolutely grate (whilst table
> > compression is rubbish).
>
> Could you elaborate on the "rubbish" comment above? The reason I ask is
> that I've seen a pretty good compression percentage in the past at the
> table level. We had a bunch of tables as part of an initial build that
> we wanted around, but needed them to cough up some of the space (I think
> they were consuming 300 - 400GB of space). I rebuilt them using CTAS,
> ordering by the columns with cardinality < 50, up to 5 of them, in order
> by lowest cardinality to higher. Doing this the compression dropped the
> table sizes to around 60% of their original size. Table compression is
> pretty effective, in my experience, for this use.
>
> Dave
> -------------------------------------
> Dave Herring, DBA
> Acxiom Corporation
> 3333 Finley
> Downers Grove, IL 60515
> wk: 630.944.4762
> <mailto:dherri@xxxxxxxxxx>
> -------------------------------------
> *************************************************************************
> The information contained in this communication is confidential, is
> intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be
> legally privileged.
>
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited.
>
> If you have received this communication in error, please resend this
> communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy
> of it from your computer system.
>
> Thank you.
> *************************************************************************
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Ram.
Other related posts:
