Hi Thanks for your reply. I will look at the white paper you suggested. The st= andby database in this case is used as a query database for a data warehous= e. I will probably try setting it to none and If that doesn=B4t help me I g= uess I will have to re-instantiate the Database. Thanks again for your reply = Birkir Bjornsson -----Upphafleg bo=F0----- Sendandi: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx= rg] Fyrir h=F6nd Mark Bole Sent: 18. febr=FAar 2005 14:17 Samrit: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Efni: Re: Logical standby transaction_consistency parameter to none Birkir Bjornsson wrote: > =3D = > = > Im running a logical standby DB and I was wondering what=3D 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=3D to set the > transaction_consisstency to none and try to get them in sync. Or wi=3D 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 -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l