Deletes with respect to table sizes [message #660728] |
Sat, 25 February 2017 23:19 |
|
manikandan23
Messages: 34 Registered: February 2017
|
Member |
|
|
In a huge table containing a couple of TBs, and 1% of data has to be deleted, what's the best method to do it?
Also, in the same huge table containing a couple of TBs, and 10% of data has to be deleted, what's the best method to do it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Deletes with respect to table sizes [message #660780 is a reply to message #660762] |
Mon, 27 February 2017 03:24 |
John Watson
Messages: 8922 Registered: January 2010 Location: Global Village
|
Senior Member |
|
|
manikandan23 wrote on Sun, 26 February 2017 23:05Thank you guys and any other suggestions?
The table is independent table. You could avoid the delete completely and instead create a VPD policy that would stop the rows being visible. A kind of virtual delete.
However, until you define "best" I don't see how you can evaluate the options.
|
|
|
Re: Deletes with respect to table sizes [message #660822 is a reply to message #660780] |
Mon, 27 February 2017 09:11 |
Bill B
Messages: 1971 Registered: December 2004
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What version of the database do you have. And what is your criteria for deleting. Your table sounds like it would be a good candidate for being partitioned. Dropping a partition is very quick and in 12c it even handles global indexes by ignoring the rows pointing to the dropped partition until the database gets around to cleaning up the global index.
|
|
|