orchestrate schema vs plug-in metadata definitions

travissolt · Post by **travissolt** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:52 pm

Are there issues with importing tables through the orchestrate schema definitions versus the plug-in metadata definitions? I have heard that when using paralleism the table structure that is imported through the orchestrate method works better then if it is done using the plug-in meta. Is this true? I am trying to figure out the best method for bringing in all of my source tables. The orchestrate schema method would require me to do it manually table by table where as the plug-in meta option allows me to select as many tables from oracle as I need.
Thanks

kumar_s · Post by **kumar_s** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:42 pm

Ideally there wont be any change during runtime. No matter how you import, either through Orchestrate or Pluging, all this metadata will be stored in a common repository where it is been used during each run.
However, there are some minor difference during import procedure especially in the Decimal fields. If you perform a search, you can find some topic dealt with the issues.

ray.wurlod · Post by **ray.wurlod** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:09 pm

Orchestrate's orchdbutil method is more accurate than plug-in stages, particularly for Oracle, and particularly for decimal/numeric columns.

vmcburney · Post by **vmcburney** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:59 pm

I had heard the same thing, the orch plugin is more accurate and it may avoid some of the warning messages you can get in parallel jobs.