Re: Direct Path Export vs. Conventional Path Export

After reading the replies to my original post, I am more concerned about BOTH direct and conventional exports.

Although both have their share of bugs, I have used the conventional path for so long, I will stick with it.

FYI... an interesting article in Metalink is at: Note:155477.1 "Parameter DIRECT: Conventional Path Export Versus Direct Path Export"

-- 
"Burton Peltier" <burttemp1REMOVE_THIS_at_bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8jV4b.4779$UF.3526_at_bignews2.bellsouth.net...


> I recently switched our export backups to direct path and was impressed at

> the performance boost.

>

> I did not set the recordlength (or buffer before with conventional path)

and


> still am seeing a significant boost in performance. The docs mention these

> settings to boost performance.

>

> In every case, the direct path is at least twice as fast and sometimes 3

> times faster than the conventional path.

>

> I assume I am missing something here because this seems too good to be

true,


> so I looked up this in the docs.

>

> I don't see any disadvantage other than you must use the same character

set


> for the client exp session as the database character set, which I always

do


> anyway.

>

> Anyone have experience with this and can comment good or bad on direct

path?


>

> -- 

>

>