Re: Thumbs Up on Compression
- From: "jaromir nemec" <jaromir@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:22:37 +0100
Hi Ian,
to receive some level of objectivity, please perform the two remaining
scenarios, i.e. compressed table with original index definition and
uncompressed table with the reverse order of index columns.
You can than compare distinctly what effect had the compression and what had
the change of index.
I'd expect the pure effect of compression somewhere close to the ratio of
the compressed and uncompressed storage.
Jaromir
----- Original Message -----
From: "MacGregor, Ian A." <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 6:10 PM
Subject: Thumbs Up on Compression
I built a non-partitioned, uncompressed table with 709,652,582 rows and =
indexed it with a non-compressed index on (timestamp, pv_id) with the =
most restrictive column first.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
