Re: Would you hash partition a hash'ed column?

What's the problem you're trying to solve by changing the partitioning method? Improve data load performance? Improve query performance of reports, etc ?

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Woody McKay <woody.mckay_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi gurus,
>
> Oracle 12.1.0.2 on Exadata...
>
> Got a VLDB. Various tables are updated/inserted daily from various data
> sources. The table from one source has roughly 8 billion records. The table
> is currently range/interval partitioned on the rec update date/timestamp.
> However, the PK and column used for the incoming data source upsert is a
> hash key that's about 30 chars long and made up of digits and alphas.
>
> Have the thought of changing the partition to be a hash partition of the
> PK column that contains a hash'ed value. Does anyone have any thoughts on
> if that would make sense of if there are any pros or cons for hashing
> partitioning a hash value?
>
> Update. I found out that records older than x years are never updated, so
> we've moved them to a history table. That took the rec count down from 8
> billion to about 750 million. That has helped performance much, but still
> wondering about hash partitioning the hash key...
>
> --
> Thanks for any thoughts...
>
> Woody
>

-- 
//
zztat - The Next-Gen Oracle Performance Monitoring and Reaction Framework!
Visit us at zztat.net | _at_zztat_oracle | fb.me/zztat | zztat.net/blog/

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