| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Partitoned Table Insert Performance
Way back in the days of Oracle 8.0.5 I did some performance testing of bulk
inserts/sqlldr of range partitioned tables v.s. non-partitioned tables. I
don't have the benchmarks on hand, but here's what I found. All tests were
done using the direct path inserts (sqlldr direct=true or /*+ APPEND */)
If the table had no indexes, then there was no noticable difference when inserting approx 8 million rows.
If the partitioned table had only local indexes, then the inserts into the tables were slightly faster. The difference was in seconds for my 8million row test.
If the partitioned table had global partitioned indexes, then the inserts were generally slower. Again, the diference was in seconds.
If the partitioned table had a global non-partitioned index there was no noticable diffence in time.
In sort, range partitioning a table does not effect performance. The indexing of the range-partitioned table does.
HTH
Caver
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 12:45 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
I am in the process of implementing partitioning on some existing tables. I have been asked by management to evaluate the performance impacts of the changes. I am aware of many of the performance advantages of partitioning: partition pruning, partition-wise joins and parallel data loads. What I am concerned about is the additional overhead of inserting data into a partitioned table. What sort of overhead is associated with partitioned table inserts? Does determining the correct partition slow insertions? We are utilizing only range partitions, so hash value computations should not be a factor. Our application is very insertion intensive. One of the operations that performs insertions does so synchronously, so any decrease in insertion performance would be quite visible. Do you have any thoughts or experiences with this issue. Any performance tests on two similar tables, one partitioned and the other not? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks. Erik
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Toepke, Kevin M
INET: ktoepke_at_trilegiant.com
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists --------------------------------------------------------------------To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). Received on Thu May 02 2002 - 12:48:31 CDT
 |
 |