Re: RE: Index-Organized Table experiences
- From: "zhu chao" <chao_ping@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:21:21 +0800
IOT table is an index, so there is no problem using it on a high activity
table.
I have a table with 2 Columns, heavily updated everyday(around 10M
updates/day) and performance is excellent. I later partitioned the table so
that removing the old data is easier.
The tricky is the overflow segment. It is still heap organized.
Secondary index on IOT table is ok(at least in 8.1.7). But as the clustering
factor of the IOT table, range scan-urowid on secondary table is less
efficient.
Regards
Zhu Chao.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ryan.gaffuri@xxxxxxx>
To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 3:56 AM
Subject: RE: RE: Index-Organized Table experiences
> How well do you feel IOTs hold up under significant DML activity? I know
what is in the docs. Anyone have significant problems? Better or worse than
have a table with all columns in one index?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
> --
> Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
> FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
