RE: Temporary table vs pl\sql table

materialized view  has some limitations in my case:
 
1. Overhead of logging (to the mlog) in order to do fast refresh , (Direct 
insert reduce this overhead , but this is a limitation)
2. We are using PEL (partition exchange ) method to load data  - this may cause 
stale in the MV .
3. MV - must be in the same time range of the source table , and we have to 
keep the summarised data for longer period. ( I could use consider fresh when 
doing a drop parititon , but this will complicate the process.
 

________________________________

From: Johan Eriksson [mailto:johan.eriksson@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wed 11/30/2005 11:30 AM
To: Amihay Gonen
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Temporary table vs pl\sql table



Hi

when reading your post it sounds like you  could benefit from using a
materialized view instead?

/johan

On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 10:42 +0200, Amihay Gonen wrote:
> Hi , I've a process which need to do a lot of processing (summaries)
> on a large set of data.
> 
> The main flow is as follow:
> 
>    copy the new rows since last run (up to defined row count) to a
> temporary table.
>    Run various selects with group by on the temporary table and
> merge them into summary table.
> 
>  I wander (I will conduct some tests ofcourse ) what type of temporary
> table will be better:
>  
>    1) create ... temporary table or ...
>    2) create type test is table of 
> 
> The first option has more i/o and go throw the buffer cache , but
> doesn't consume a lot of memory
> the second option doesn't has I/O but consume more memory for the PGA.
> 
> Any ideas ?
> 
> 
>

Other related posts: