Hi, Paul,

Thanks for your reply.

My consideration is:

if a reorgchk shows "not necessary", then the reorg won't take a long time; But it elimiates the danger of waiting until necessary and then cost a long time to reorg

if a reorgchk shows "necessary", then I need do reorg

So in both case, reorg won't do any harm, such as compete with applications of a table in unnecessary time.



Best wishes,
Qin

**********************
*A climber to DBA*
**********************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Le Claire " <db2udbdba-ezmlmshield-x62321640.[Email address protected]
To: "LazyDBA Discussion" <[Email address protected]
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 1:09 AM
Subject: Fw: Is reorgchk necessary


> Qin,
>
> That works wonderful if you have all the spare CPU cycles in the world and
> are not afraid of competing with your application for tables. Why not use
> the hybrid approach? Run the reorg check as frequently as you need to and
> then if tables require a reorg, take that table from the reorg check and put
> it into a script that gets run off hours? That way you are not directly
> competing with the application for exclusive control of the tables most of
> the time and you are only burning reorg cycles when a reorg is truly
> needed...
>
> Just my .02 cents worth...
>
> Been there done that DBA.
>
> PL
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kylin " <db2udbdba-ezmlmshield-x63566171.[Email address protected]
> To: "LazyDBA Discussion" <[Email address protected]
> Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 8:45 AM
> Subject: Is reorgchk necessary
>
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As my understanding, reorg will physically move records in a table
>> according the primary index sequence. So that durning the query, less IO
>> operations are needed.
>>
>> reorgchk will generate a report accoding some statistic informations. It
>> seems there will be a threshold. When this threshold reaches, it will mark
>> the table or index with a * to tell reorg is necessary.
>>
>> But from my point of view, doing reorg as frequently as possible is
>> better. When disordered records accumulate to a certain degree, it will
>> cost longer time to run reorg. It just likes if you sort your book once a
>> week or once a month.
>>
>> So I think reorg should be perfrom in spite of the result of reorgchk. If
>> a table is ordered, "reorg" won't move any records. It works only when a
>> table is disordered. Besides, reorgchk itself costs time to generate the
>> report.
>>
>> Following is my preferred Database Maintenance Process:
>>
>> reorg --> runstats -> rebind
>>
>> I'm also not clear about the reorg on index. Since there can be only one
>> primary index for one table, so the records can sort according only one
>> sequence. What will the reorg of index do? Sort the index itself but not
>> records in the table?
>>
>> Please feel free to correct me if you find any issues. And any comments
>> will be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Qin
>>
>> **********************
>> *A climber to DBA*
>> **********************
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> TO REPLY TO EVERBODY , PLEASE CLICK REPLY-ALL, NOT JUST REPLY
>> To post a dba job: http://jobs.lazydba.com
>> To Subscribe : http://www.LazyDBA.com
>> To unsubscribe: http://www.lazydba.com/unsubscribe.html
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> TO REPLY TO EVERBODY , PLEASE CLICK REPLY-ALL, NOT JUST REPLY
> To post a dba job: http://jobs.lazydba.com
> To Subscribe : http://www.LazyDBA.com
> To unsubscribe: http://www.lazydba.com/unsubscribe.html
>
>

DB2 & UDB email list listserv db2-l LazyDBA home page