Re: Quick question about table partitioning?

Hello Daniel,

Right now the database is about 1 million rows about 2 gigs in size. It is an NT server for now but will be changing to Solaris in the furture. The system has almost a gig a ram. The database is pretty much reads. Very few writes.

The user base at this time is unknown but say for starters about 25-50.

The table is structure is 4 numeric fields for lookups, one date field, a varchar2 500, 250, 250 and one CLOB to hold the articles.

The search can be either on the articles or on the varchar2 500 field with a numeric field id to help filter the selection.

I had the CLOB in a seperate table but the perfrmance when I joined to it was horrible so I brought it over a one table design hopeing it would help increase performance. It is a little better but still slow. I also tried a bitmap index on the filter field but not much improvement. I am using intermedia to search the CLOB and the numeric field at the same time for narrowing down the results.

Thanks,

Kev.-

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:35:31 -0700, "Daniel A. Morgan" <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote:

>The answer is far more complex than the question. What operating system
>on what platform with how much RAM? How many users are simultaneously
>accessing the table, what SQL is being run against it? What indexes are
>on it? And other than the CLOB field, how big is the row?
>
>Daniel A. Morgan
>
>
>
>"Kev.-" wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The table I have will become very large over time 50+ million rows.
>> Would I be better off partitioning the table to get better
>> performance? If I do this how much speed can I gain from it?
>>
>> Also I know I have to re-create the table but can I do an insert into
>> select * from x even though there is a CLOB column invloved?
>>
>> I figure if I have the partitions on the category ids this would help
>> the query as it would only have to search on that category within the
>> partition. but how would it work if I wanted to search across
>> multiple categories at one time?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Kev.-
>
Received on Tue Apr 17 2001 - 02:09:17 CDT