Return-Path: Received: from ensim.rackshack.net (root@localhost) by orafaq.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8PFs1f05578 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:54:01 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 66.27.56.210 Received: from ns3.fatcity.com (rrcs-west-66-27-56-210.biz.rr.com [66.27.56.210]) by ensim.rackshack.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8PFrvc05571 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:53:58 -0500 Received: from ns3.fatcity.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ns3.fatcity.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h8PDEweu018819 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:15:12 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by ns3.fatcity.com (8.12.8/8.12.5/Submit) id h8PCoONm009189 for oracle-l@orafaq.net; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 05:50:25 -0700 Received: by fatcity.com (05-Jun-2003/v1.0g-b73/bab) via fatcity.com id 005D10B9; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 05:49:42 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 05:49:42 -0800 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L X-Comment: Oracle RDBMS Community Forum X-Sender: "Jamadagni, Rajendra" Sender: ml-errors@fatcity.com Reply-To: ORACLE-L@fatcity.com Errors-To: ML-ERRORS@fatcity.com From: "Jamadagni, Rajendra" Subject: RE: Oracle Compress Option Organization: Fat City Network Services, San Diego, California X-ListServer: v1.0g, build 73; ListGuru (c) 1996-2003 Bruce A. Bergman Precedence: bulk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPartTM-000-52c0352b-b58a-4053-8978-f3230c0e8f06" ------=_NextPartTM-000-52c0352b-b58a-4053-8978-f3230c0e8f06 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C38362.E95E5238" ------_=_NextPart_001_01C38362.E95E5238 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Waleed, I get your point ...=20 =20 We have 6 RAC instances that run active-active ... and compared to availability requirements, we (incl management) decided that disk is = cheap. =20 I guess it is relative ... =20 Raj ------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- ----=20 Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot com=20 All Views expressed in this email are strictly personal.=20 QOTD: Any clod can have facts, having an opinion is an art !=20 -----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 9:35 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Disk is not cheap if you pay for high availability configuration. I = compress historical data on daily basis and was able to save 70 percent of the = disk space. Imagine the amount of savings for five TB. =20 Two major issues: =20 1) Oracle says updates will be slow on compressed tables, but I say = don't even try to update a compressed table, uncompress first otherwise you = will end up with a segment that is not good at all for scattered reads. =20 2) You can not add columns to the table when it's compressed, so if you compressed a big table and need a new column you need to recreate the = table without compression. So adding many extra columns before compression is = a good idea. =20 It's mainly good for data warehouses applications. =20 Regards, =20 Waleed =20 -----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 9:05 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L I think 9202 doesn't like to export compressed tables in direct mode = .. so watch out for that ... I implemented, tested and next day reverted back = to regular tables due to this export issue. Disk is cheap. A BAARF party member wannabe !!=20 Raj=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- ----=20 Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot com=20 All Views expressed in this email are strictly personal.=20 QOTD: Any clod can have facts, having an opinion is an art !=20 -----Original Message-----=20 ]=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10:05 PM=20 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L=20 "Compress to impress?" by Julian Dyke is a good presentation on this=20 topic (see for instance http://www.ukoug.org/calendar/jan03/jan30ab.htm ).=20 I do have the article - 202 K with no compression, 147 K with=20 compression :).=20 Let me know if you're interested, and I'll email it directly to you.=20 Mogens=20 Avnish.Rastogi@providence.org wrote:=20 >Does anybody has any experience with Oracle 9I compression option. I = did some test on 9202 with a table of more 14 million rows. Table has total = 7 indexes. Surprising both table and indexes are using more space after compression. Before compression space used is 13064MB and after = compression 13184MB. In both the cases I did export from source table and stored in = two different tablespaces. Any insight on that and any disadvantages of = using that. >=20 >Thanks=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C38362.E95E5238 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: Oracle Compress Option
Waleed, I get your point ...
 
We have 6 RAC instances that run active-active ... and compared to availability requirements, we (incl management) decided that disk is cheap.
 
I guess it is relative ...
 
Raj
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot com
All Views expressed in this email are strictly personal.
QOTD: Any clod can have facts, having an opinion is an art !
-----Original Message-----
From: Khedr, Waleed [mailto:Waleed.Khedr@FMR.COM]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 9:35 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: Oracle Compress Option

Disk is not cheap if you pay for high availability configuration. I compress historical data on daily basis and was able to save 70 percent of the disk space. Imagine the amount of savings for five TB.
 
Two major issues:
 
1) Oracle says updates will be slow on compressed tables, but I say don't even try to update a compressed table, uncompress first otherwise you will end up with a segment that is not good at all for scattered reads.
 
2) You can not add columns to the table when it's compressed, so if you compressed a big table and need a new column you need to recreate the table without compression. So adding many extra columns before compression is a good idea.
 
It's mainly good for data warehouses applications.
 
Regards,
 
Waleed
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamadagni, Rajendra [mailto:Rajendra.Jamadagni@espn.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 9:05 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: Oracle Compress Option

I think 9202 doesn't like to export compressed tables in direct mode ... so watch out for that ... I implemented, tested and next day reverted back to regular tables due to this export issue. Disk is cheap.

A BAARF party member wannabe !!
Raj
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot com
All Views expressed in this email are strictly personal.
QOTD: Any clod can have facts, having an opinion is an art !


-----Original Message-----
From: Mogens Nørgaard [mailto:mln@miracleas.dk]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10:05 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: Oracle Compress Option


"Compress to impress?" by Julian Dyke is a good presentation on this
topic (see for instance http://www.ukoug.org/calendar/jan03/jan30ab.htm).

I do have the article - 202 K with no compression, 147 K with
compression :).

Let me know if you're interested, and I'll email it directly to you.

Mogens

Avnish.Rastogi@providence.org wrote:

>Does anybody has any experience with Oracle 9I compression option. I did some test on 9202 with a table of more 14 million rows. Table has total 7 indexes. Surprising both table and indexes are using more space after compression. Before compression space used is 13064MB and after compression 13184MB. In both the cases I did export from source table and stored in two different tablespaces. Any insight on that and any disadvantages of using that.

>
>Thanks

------_=_NextPart_001_01C38362.E95E5238-- ------=_NextPartTM-000-52c0352b-b58a-4053-8978-f3230c0e8f06 Content-Type: text/plain; name="ESPN_Disclaimer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ESPN_Disclaimer.txt" ********************************************************************This e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify corporate MIS at (860) 766-2000 and delete this e-mail message from your computer, Thank you.*********************************************************************2 ------=_NextPartTM-000-52c0352b-b58a-4053-8978-f3230c0e8f06-- -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jamadagni, Rajendra INET: Rajendra.Jamadagni@espn.com Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru@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).