Re: Creating Nonpartitioned Indexe vs. Partitioned Global Prefixed on Nonpartitioned Table

From: Karthikeyan Panchanathan <keyantech_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:18:49 +0000
Message-ID: <SA0PR02MB7484D7440DBB5A0775529748FFA40_at_SA0PR02MB7484.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>

Fred

Used recently for high frequency OLTP database on non-partition table. Table index causing high Buffer Busy Waits due multiple sessions doing DML

Created Hash partition global partition index which reduced in half.

I understand we can partition table and have Local index. In my case i was advised to minimum change without any impact to application layer

HTH
Karth

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

---

From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org <oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org> on behalf of Fred Habash <fmhabash_at_gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 3:57:57 PM To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org <oracle-l_at_freelists.org> Subject: Creating Nonpartitioned Indexe vs. Partitioned Global Prefixed on Nonpartitioned Table

I have a nonpartitioned table in an application schema that has two globally partitioned prefixed indexes. I do not know why the original author decided to use partitioned indexes.

I've researched the Oracle docs and there is a description of local vs. global indexes. But why would one choose to partition indexes on a non-partiioend table?

Overall, global prefixed indexes are good for OLTP, support pruning, and they are 'hard to manage'.

---

Thank you

--

http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Mon Jan 18 2021 - 22:18:49 CET