Re: Parallel update on non-partitioned tables - allowed at 10/11g?

  • From: Kellyn Pedersen <kjped1313@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cam <kadmon@xxxxxxxxx>, greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:50:13 -0800 (PST)

Just my 2c on this one.  I'm at a company now that thinks every other statement 
should be run in parallel, so educating everyone on every aspect of parallel 
has become my mission..:)
Although I agree some of the older docs that they have kept around 
can contradict a bit, between parallel DML and such, (I know I've had 
questions on verify similar areas myself...)  the information in these docs are 
of such value that they would most likely have to pry them from my cold, dead 
hands... :)
My favorite?  The Oracle 8i parallel standards.  It has the most extensive list 
of dba views for parallel out there...
Kellyn Pedersen
Multi-Platform DBA
I-Behavior Inc.
"Go away before I replace you with a very small and efficient shell script..."

--- On Mon, 11/16/09, Greg Rahn <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Greg Rahn <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Parallel update on non-partitioned tables - allowed at 10/11g?
To: "cam" <kadmon@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, November 16, 2009, 3:09 PM

If you want to save the time, I work for Oracle and I confirmed my
statements with developers in the parallel execution group.
Feel free to file an SR if you wish.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:06 PM, cam <kadmon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for taking the time Greg.
> I am at the point of running a test case myself and, as soon as I can
> get into MOS (about which the less said, the better..), raise an SR to
> get a definitive answer from Oracle. Not that I don't believe your
> test case, but I'd like to have them admit the docs are 2 major
> versions out of date...

Greg Rahn


Other related posts: