Re: cluster or no cluster ?

Hi Regine,

I think you answer your own question. If you tried another solution and don't see any gain, don't do anything. Clusters aren't that bad, it's just most people are afraid of them because they don't understand them. So stick with cluster.

In article <3A5C7C9F.B18D2343_at_ukl.uni-freiburg.de>,   Regine Marx <marx_at_ukl.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm storing medical information in an Oracle 7.3 database running on
 NT
> 4.0 server. There are four main tables: the master table storing
 medical
> reports(1K each) and three detail tables storing additional
 information
> to a report: images (250K each!), numeric values(200 bytes each), and
> additional texts(1-3K each). At the moment these four tables are
 stored
> in a cluster with cluster key REPORT_ID. Because of the unequal space
> use of the cluster rows (some reports have images, some have none) I'm
> not sure if this is a good solution...
> When I dropped the cluster on a test database and stored the tables
> separately the space usage for the database rose from 4.1 G to 7.5 G.
> There's no remarkable change in performance.
> Should I keep the cluster or not ?
> Any recommendations ?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Regine
>
>

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/ Received on Wed Jan 10 2001 - 16:37:53 CST