Re: ** temp table or permanent
- From: "Mark Brinsmead" <pythianbrinsmead@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: ajoshi977@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:26:09 -0600
You seem to be jumping through a lot of hoops to solve a fairly
straight-forward (sounding) problem.
Your first step should be to optimize / rewrite the query to perform less
I/O and or execute more quickly.
Your second step should be to increase UNDO / Rollback as needed, within
practical limits, of course.
After this, you might consider temporary tables (Global Temporary Table
recommended) etc. or
Materialized Views.
Of course, advice like this is easy to give when I know *nothing* of your
specific situation. ;-)
On 7/5/06, A Joshi <ajoshi977@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I had a big query which was running out of rollback so after some
tuning i had to break it down in to two. from the first query i store the
result in a temporary table and then use it for second part. it is still
slow. i did not use permament table since that could involve
rollback/redo. but still i will try to check it. i am also thinking of
pl/sql table but if that always remains in memory then it could impact
memory or sga. pl/sql table uses pga or OS memory but if paging swapping
occurs then it would impact sga too. Will it always be faster than temp or
permanent table? Can some one give feedback if you had similar experience.
Thanks for help.
--
Cheers,
-- Mark Brinsmead
Staff DBA,
The Pythian Group
http://www.pythian.com/blogs
Other related posts:
