Re: Partition by three column values

From: Deepak Sharma <sharmakdeep_oracle_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:21:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20060222192138.3062.qmail@web52808.mail.yahoo.com>

If there won't be any global indexes, dropping data would just fly if you use partitioning approach. With global inexes, it would still be faster than parallel delete to purge in my opinion, but I don't know for sure because we don't use this approach as it generates a lot of rollback info.

Also, I don't know how much data you want to keep in this table, 1 year, 5yrs, 10 yrs, ..? For a 5Yr, retention, 6000 subpartitions should be ok. You would typically see a contention if you have so many partitions in cases where the data gets loaded in old partitions also. How will you be loading this table?

Deepak

> Deepak,
>
> Thanks for the response. Yes, your design looks
> promising and good
> solution to the partitioning. I am evaluating it. I
> am also evaluating
> should I have that many partitions - subpartitions
> or have a simple
> partition by acct_id and use parallel delete do
> purging. Any thoughts
> on this.

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Received on Wed Feb 22 2006 - 13:21:38 CST