I'm not sure whether Oracle tracks NOLOGGING operations at the segment level. I've never really bothered to look. But it *does* track them at the *block* level! If you have a physical standby, at least. Blocks affected by non-logged operations will manifest there as "corrupt" blocks. Something like an RMAN "BACKUP VALIDATE" will be sufficient to find them; they will be reported both in the RMAN output and a dictionary view (V$BLOCK_CORRUPTION maybe). From corrupt blocks it is a short but tedious journey to segments. Assuming the dictionary view doesn't provide you with the segment name, that is. (Sorry -- no documentation on hand here -- just an aging memory.) I know that this is not quite what Finn has been thinking of, but it might need his needs. On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Andrey.Kriushin <Andrey.Kriushin@xxxxxxxx>wrote: > Hi Finn, > > Mark's comment on feasubility is complete. Nothing to add. > > However for pure theoretical investigation... At least we know now, that > Oracle RDBMS doesn't keep a track of NOLOGGING operations at the segment > level. Does it? > > I'd look at the definition of GV$SEGMENT_STATISTICS and x$ksolsfts. This > x$-table keeps the runtime statistics (FTS_STATNAM), and if you see > 'physical writes direct' there, it might be (or not - in case of PQO) an > indication of direct load, probably with the NOLOGGING. > > > BTW, it would be nice to see the version of the product (RDBMS) in your > future posts. > > HTH, > -- Andrey > > ... > -- Cheers, -- Mark Brinsmead Senior DBA, The Pythian Group http://www.pythian.com/blogs