dbTalk Databases Forums  

Schema changes on on large tables

comp.databases.oracle comp.databases.oracle


Discuss Schema changes on on large tables in the comp.databases.oracle forum.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old   
PR
 
Posts: n/a

Default Schema changes on on large tables - 09-14-2004 , 02:03 AM






Hi,
I have a basic question on schema changes performed on populated tables.
Should I prepare for big roll back area and so on for both of these changes:
ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN
ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN
Table contain abt. 40 mill records

Appriciate the help, as i am just DBA stand in in my project:-)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old   
Yukonkid
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Schema changes on on large tables - 09-15-2004 , 08:18 AM






priisberg (AT) netscape (DOT) net (PR) wrote in message news:<d95b480f.0409132303.291b66f9 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...
Quote:
Hi,
I have a basic question on schema changes performed on populated tables.
Should I prepare for big roll back area and so on for both of these changes:
ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN
ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN
Table contain abt. 40 mill records

Appriciate the help, as i am just DBA stand in in my project:-)


ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN

As far this is only a change in Oracle's data repository there is
nothing to concern about rbs sizing = fast.

ALTER TABLE MODIFY COLUMN (you mean)

generally, no overhead if you keep the sizes or extend them = fast
if you shrink the sizes there's some validation that could take a
while, but nothing to concern about regarding rbs.

RBS will come into play when you have to update your new/changed
column.
I prefer several RBS split in one RBS per tablespace , enough data
files with autoextend (but with max. size limit, say 2 Gb) so the
system can choose ANY rbs to end the transaction successfully.

hope that helps

yk


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old   
PR
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Schema changes on on large tables - 09-16-2004 , 08:20 AM



Hi,
Thanks a lot for your answer.
I checked the details of the operations (traced up the transactions),
and they are all "ALTER ADD" types. However the statements contain a
default value setting of 0,00 (Datatype DEC 2,2). I belive this
results in roll?

Reply With Quote
Reply




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.