A few more 12c articles went live over the last few days…
The DMU and In-Database Archiving are from the OCP syllabus. The Invisible Columns stuff seemed like a natural thing to mention, when discussing the In-Database Archiving.
The 12c journey continues…
A comment on one of my early blogs about the 12c in-memory database option asked how Oracle would deal with read-consistency. I came up with a couple of comments outlining the sort of thing I would look for in a solution, and this note is an outline on how I started to tackle the question – with a couple of the subsequent observations. The data is (nearly) the same as the data I generated for my previous article on the in-memory database (and I’m running 126.96.36.199, of course):
Oracle’s 188.8.131.52 was released a few weeks ago (You can download it from OTN here: Oracle 184.108.40.206 Download). While technically a minor point release, it contains a couple of major features that would normally be rolled out in a more substantial version change like 12cR2 or perhaps V13. Of course the most highly anticipated feature is a new option (Oracle In-Memory Option) that provides a column oriented, in-memory store. Enkitec was in the Beta program, so we’ve been testing it out for quite a while now and we are impressed.
One of the really cool new features introduced in 220.127.116.11 is Attribute Clustering. This new table based attribute allows you to very easily cluster data in close physical proximity based on the content of specific columns. As I’ve discussed many times, indexes love table data that is physically clustered in a similar manner to the index […]
The title of this piece is the name given to a new feature in 18.104.22.168, and since I’ve recently blogged about a limitation of the in-memory option I thought I’d pick this feature as the next obvious thing to blog about. This is a bit of a non sequitur, though, as the feature seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the in-memory option; instead it’s a cunning mechanism combining aspects of the star-transformation (but without the bitmap indexes), Bloom filters, and “group-by” placement to minimise the cost of aggregation over high-volume joins.
Here’s a small data set I’ll use to demonstrate the feature:
I’ve been struggling to find time to have any interaction with the Oracle community for the last couple of months – partly due to workload, partly due to family matters and (okay, I’ll admit it) I really did have a few days’ holiday this month. So making my comeback with a bang – here’s a quick comment about the 22.214.171.124 in-memory feature, and how it didn’t quite live up to my expectation; but it’s also a comment about assumptions, tests, and inventiveness.
Just a quick post on a new Exadata feature called Zone Maps. They’re similar to storage indexes on Exadata, but with more control (you can define the columns and how the data is refreshed for example). People have complained for years that storage indexes provided no control mechanisms, but now we have a way to exert our God given rights as DBA’s to control yet another aspect of the database. Here’s a link to the 126.96.36.199 documentation which resides in the Data Warehousing Guide: Zone Map Documentation
Zone Maps are restricted to Exadata storage by the way (well probably they work on ZFS and Pillar too). Have a look at the Oracle error messages file:
After yesterday’s to PDB or not to PDB post, I decided the answer was “to PDB”. Here’s what I did…
I’m about to start a Proof of Concept (POC) for a 12c upgrade of one of our databases. The production database in question is running on Oracle Linux inside a VMware virtual machine, so the starting point I’ve been given for the POC is a clone of the whole VM…
Probably the biggest decision I’ve got to make is “to PDB or not to PDB” *. I mentioned it on Twitter earlier and got some conflicting opinions. I guess the pros and cons of the PDB approach go something like this in my head.
I suggested a little while ago that thinking about the new in-memory columnar store as a variation on the principle of bitmap indexes was quite a good idea. I’ve had a couple of emails since then asking me to expand on the idea because “it’s wrong” – I will follow that one up as soon as I can, but in the meantime here’s another angle for connecting old technology with new technology: