Re: Logical standby transaction_consistency parameter to none

Birkir Bjornsson wrote:
>  = 
> 
> Im running a logical standby DB and I was wondering what= happends if I set
> transaction_consisstency parameter to none. The logical standby is behind by
> almost 8 days and I need to speed things up. All the tables have indexes so
> that’s not the problem I guess. But is it okei= to set the
> transaction_consisstency to none and try to get them in sync. Or wi= ll it
> mess up the standby database? 
> 
> Thanks Birkir 

Version?

There is a white paper on Metalink "9i SQL Apply Best Practices" which 
documents a moderate speed-up by setting transaction_consistency to 
NONE.  Beware of trying to monitor the apply progress as user SYSTEM or 
SYS in this case, you won't see accurate information.  Also, don't let 
users actually query anything while applying with this setting in 
effect, as results can be inconsistent.

Depending on your situation, it may be faster to simply re-instantiate 
your logical standby (if you can afford the brief outage of your primary 
to do so).  If you are using this strictly for disaster recovery, a 
physical standby would be a better choice, and recovering 8 days worth 
of archived redo would probably go much faster too.

-- 
Mark Bole
http://www.bincomputing.com



--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Other related posts: