Return-Path: Received: from ensim.rackshack.net (root@localhost) by orafaq.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8PGeLb10223 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:40:21 -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 h8PGeKc10218 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:40:20 -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 h8PE1Heo032203 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:01:38 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by ns3.fatcity.com (8.12.8/8.12.5/Submit) id h8PDZNgF026295 for oracle-l@orafaq.net; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:35:25 -0700 Received: by fatcity.com (05-Jun-2003/v1.0g-b73/bab) via fatcity.com id 005D10C2; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:34:40 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:34:40 -0800 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L X-Comment: Oracle RDBMS Community Forum X-Sender: "Tanel Poder" Sender: ml-errors@fatcity.com Reply-To: ORACLE-L@fatcity.com Errors-To: ML-ERRORS@fatcity.com From: "Tanel Poder" 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/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_130E_01C38382.85D6CD60" ------=_NextPart_000_130E_01C38382.85D6CD60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Oracle Compress OptionHm, interesting... How does your active-active config work, do you have write activity on = all nodes? I'd be interested in any performance issues you had or currently have... Have you partitioned your application or data usage somehow? What kind of interconnect you're using? Tanel. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Jamadagni, Rajendra=20 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L=20 Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 4:49 PM Subject: RE: Oracle Compress Option Waleed, I get your point ...=20 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 = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------=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----- 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 !!=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 From: Mogens N=F8rgaard [mailto:mln@miracleas.dk]=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10:05 PM=20 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L=20 Subject: Re: Oracle Compress Option=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_000_130E_01C38382.85D6CD60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Oracle Compress Option
Hm, interesting...
 
How does your active-active config = work, do you=20 have write activity on all nodes?
I'd be interested in any performance = issues you had=20 or currently have...
Have you partitioned your application = or data usage=20 somehow?
What kind of interconnect you're=20 using?
 
Tanel.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Jamadagni, Rajendra =
Sent: Thursday, September 25, = 2003 4:49=20 PM
Subject: RE: Oracle Compress = Option

Waleed, I get your point ...
 
We have 6 RAC instances that run active-active ... and = compared to=20 availability requirements, we (incl management) decided that disk is=20 cheap.
 
I guess it is relative ...
 
Raj
----------------------------------------------------------------= ----------------=20
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at = nospamespn dot=20 com
All Views expressed = in this=20 email are strictly personal.
QOTD:=20 Any clod can have facts, having an opinion is an art !
-----Original Message-----
From: Khedr, Waleed=20 [mailto:Waleed.Khedr@FMR.COM]
Sent: Thursday, September = 25, 2003=20 9:35 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list=20 ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: Oracle Compress = Option

Disk is not=20 cheap if you pay for high availability configuration. I compress = historical=20 data on daily basis and was able to save 70 percent of the disk = space.=20 Imagine the amount of savings for five TB.
 
Two major=20 issues:
 
1) Oracle=20 says updates will be slow on compressed tables, but I say don't even = try to=20 update a compressed table, uncompress first otherwise you will end = up with a=20 segment that is not good at all for scattered = reads.
 
2) You can=20 not add columns to the table when it's compressed, so if you = compressed a=20 big table and need a new column you need to recreate the table = without=20 compression. So adding many extra columns before compression is a = good=20 idea.
 
It's mainly=20 good for data warehouses applications.
 
Regards,
 
Waleed
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamadagni, = Rajendra=20 [mailto:Rajendra.Jamadagni@espn.com]
Sent: Thursday, = September=20 25, 2003 9:05 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list=20 ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: Oracle Compress=20 Option

I think 9202 doesn't like to export compressed = tables in=20 direct mode ... so watch out for that ... I implemented, tested = and next=20 day reverted back to regular tables due to this export issue. Disk = is=20 cheap.

A BAARF party member wannabe !!
Raj
----------------------------------------------------------------= ----------------=20
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot = com=20
All Views expressed in this email are strictly=20 personal.
QOTD: Any clod can have facts, = having an=20 opinion is an art !


-----Original Message-----
From:=20 Mogens N=F8rgaard [mailto:mln@miracleas.dk]=20
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10:05 = PM=20
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L =
Subject: Re: Oracle Compress Option


"Compress to impress?" by Julian Dyke is a good=20 presentation on this
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=20 with
compression :).

Let me know if you're interested, and I'll email = it=20 directly to you.

Mogens

Avnish.Rastogi@providence.org wrote:

>Does anybody has any experience with Oracle = 9I=20 compression option. I did some test on 9202 with a table of more = 14=20 million rows. Table has total 7 indexes. Surprising both table and = indexes=20 are using more space after compression. Before compression space = used is=20 13064MB and after compression 13184MB. In both the cases I did = export from=20 source table and stored in two different tablespaces. Any insight = on that=20 and any disadvantages of using that.

>
>Thanks =

------=_NextPart_000_130E_01C38382.85D6CD60-- -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tanel Poder INET: tanel.poder.003@mail.ee 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).