Home » RDBMS Server » Performance Tuning » What is Faster? Bulk Inserts/or Direct Path Insert?
What is Faster? Bulk Inserts/or Direct Path Insert? [message #65216] Tue, 15 June 2004 22:07 Go to next message
IA
Messages: 91
Registered: March 2004
Member
Hi Everyone,

 

I am running Oracle 9i on Sun 2.9.

 

I have a large batch job to process. I would like to know what is faster method, using Direct Path insert via the append hint, OR,

using Bulk inserts.

 

Can you please assist ... Thanks... IA
Re: What is Faster? Bulk Inserts/or Direct Path Insert? [message #65219 is a reply to message #65216] Fri, 18 June 2004 04:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ajendra
Messages: 165
Registered: February 2004
Senior Member
I beleive INSERT INTO with NoLogging would be faster as for BULK INSERT you have to make a BULK COLLECT too.
Re: What is Faster? Bulk Inserts/or Direct Path Insert? [message #65220 is a reply to message #65219] Fri, 18 June 2004 09:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
andrew again
Messages: 2577
Registered: March 2000
Senior Member
I would agree. They are different things. The bulk collect is a PL/SQL array processing thing whereas the direct path insert affects the amount of redo written (recoverability issue).
Re: What is Faster? Bulk Inserts/or Direct Path Insert? [message #65254 is a reply to message #65216] Mon, 05 July 2004 13:01 Go to previous message
croK
Messages: 170
Registered: April 2002
Senior Member
insert APPEND is extremely fast.
Besides, try to alter table to NOLOGGING
and disable any indexes or primary key, you can then recreate it.

BULK INSERT?, is it a new feature?, i do hear about BULK COLLECT, and it is some kind of array implementation from within PL/SQL.

Best luck
Previous Topic: Estimating DB Size of Prodution Database
Next Topic: Procedure takes too long to extract using By Ref Cursor
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Sep 27 02:53:46 CDT 2020