Re: Quick question about table partitioning?

Personally I don't think partitioning is going to give you much bang for the buck though others that have worked with something similar to what you have may disagree ... and if they have an environment more like yours listen to them ... not me.

In your situation I would absolutely get the thing off of anything named Windows. Solaris is a good choice. I would go for a minimum Enterprise 450 with 4 CPUs and at least 2 GB RAM. By logically mapping your disk array of 9 GB or 18 GB drives to u03, u04, etc. you will effectively partition your table across multiple physical drives without having to do any real mapping.

With respect to your bitmapped index the two criteria are volatility (how often is the index modified) and cardinality. If you have high cardinality, lots of different values, a bitmap index is a bad idea. If this is the case go to BTree indexes.

I will be watching to see what others suggest.

Daniel A. Morgan

"Kev.-" wrote:

> 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 Wed Apr 18 2001 - 00:18:33 CDT