I know you didn't. I too think they are good and the preferred choice
if you partition the table.
Richard Foote <Richard.Foote_at_oracle.com> wrote in message news:<3D545FC8.B4AF0C7C_at_oracle.com>...
> Hi All,
>
> And just for the record, I certainly never suggested I was against local
> indexes. I clearly mentioned that there are pros and cons to
> local/global indexes and that it's a case of horses for courses (as it
> usually is).
>
> Local Indexes are extremely useful when used appropriately and have
> clear maintenance advantages over global indexes. However, when all
> local index partitions need to accessed, then issues such as this can
> arise. The performance implications in this example, suggest that the
> local horse may not be the right one for this course (not while it's a
> wet track anyway :)
>
> Cheers
>
> Richard
>
> Jonathan Luis wrote:
> >
> > Comments inline.
> >
> > --
> > Regards
> >
> > Jonathan Lewis
> > http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
> >
> > Next Seminars
> > UK Sept, Nov
> > USA x 2 November
> >
> > http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html
> >
> > Michael Burden wrote in message
> > <3bbc0756.0208080127.61a916cb_at_posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > >Everyone seems against local indexes but why.
> > >
> >
> > This seems to be a rather extreme comment, given
> > that only two other people have participated in this
> > thread so far.
> >
> > Just for the record - local indexes are a 'good thing'
> > and can be used very effectively. The arithmetic in
> > the example you give is, however, well-known as
> > defining a potential overhead.
> >
> > >
> > >Now as the data is striped (or perhaps even better each partition is
> > >on a different disk) each of the 10 partitions can be run in parallel
> > >and so the actual response time could be quicker.
> > >
> >
> > Your arithmetic is perfectly sound, but the response
> > time you are seeing is not as expected. Perhaps the
> > paragraph above is a hint at the real problem - are
> > you making this query run in parallel - if so, how many
> > ways, and is it possible that most of the excess 3-4
> > seconds is in the PX setup ?
> --
Received on Mon Aug 12 2002 - 16:48:59 CDT
