Re: partitioning necessary?

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:11:07 +0100, Thomas Blankschein wrote:

> Hello,
>
> we have one table in our database with ~700 million rows. The table is index
> organized and we are very happy with the performance.
> During the next 1-2 years we expect ~3-4 billion rows in this table. Shall
> we consider partitioning? We use 9.2 standard, so we have to licence the
> option with extra costs. If the performance is ok and our DBAs have no probs
> with management, is it ok to leave this big table as it is?
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas

Partitioning is not necessary.

However, if you include

- the user's time spent waiting on data;
- the DBA's and developer's time spent managing performance;
- and management time spent discussing performance issues,

you might find it possible to justify the cost of both Enterprise Edition AND partitioning option.

<rant>
IME, most organizations asking this question have no idea how to evaluate 'total cost of ownership' and are therefore willing to spend great gobs of money on workarounds and labour instead of getting the right software.
</rant>

/Hans Received on Wed Dec 22 2004 - 13:25:17 CST