Re: Novice question: Tablespaces and Users

"Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> wrote in message news:3fe6179d$0$28694$cc9e4d1f_at_news.dial.pipex.com...
> Um
>
> See Daniel's answer. The idea behind his approach as I understand it is to
> partition tables on a client column and to store the partitions in
separate
> areas. This does do exactly as Daniel describes.
>
> It also proves my statement that " A user cannot own multiple objects of
the
> same type with the same name " to be woefully wrong.
>
> I ought to have known this
>
>
> 1 select object_type,count(*) from all_objects
> 2 where owner='NIALL' and object_name='SALES'
> 3* group by object_type
> SQL> /
>
> OBJECT_TYPE COUNT(*)
> ------------------ ----------
> TABLE 1
> TABLE PARTITION 16
>

Hi Niall

I think you're being a bit hard on yourself. Your statement "A user cannot own multiple objects of the
same type with the same name" is quite valid. In your example, there is *only one* object that has a name called "SALES". However, SALES has 16 subobjects (table partitions) that belong to it, each identified by their own subobject_name and object_id.

With DBA_OBJECTS, Oracle tries to record the "parent" object that corresponds to all partitioned objects within the same view. Therefore *the same object_name* (parent) can be stored multiple times, but each occurrence corresponds to a different subobject_name (child).

Therefore the above example doesn't invalidate your correct comment. You can't be blamed if DBA_OBJECTS decides to store the same object_name multiple times.

Cheers

Richard Received on Mon Dec 22 2003 - 06:26:13 CST