Re: Bulk loading partitioned tables slower than heap tables?

  • From: ryan_gaffuri@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: ax.mount@xxxxxxxxx, oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:48:41 +0000

What kind of partitioning did you use? How did you spread out the partitions. 
did you have them in sepearte datafiles? 

In the past I have had problems with full tablescanning hash partitioned tables 
if I did not use parallel slaves. It was slower than full scanning a heap 
-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: amonte <ax.mount@xxxxxxxxx> 

I was wondering if anyone has experience bulk loading data to partitioned 
tables? I have run some tests and running bulk load (insert append) into 
partitioned tables is actually 40% more costy. For example to load up a 80 
million rows table it takes around 8 minutes whereas with plain heap table it 
only takes 5 

Test used:
LMT with 16MB uniform size extent
Parallel DML
Parallel Query
Degree 16



Other related posts: