Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: partitioning necessary?

Re: partitioning necessary?

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:03:23 -0800
Message-ID: <41ca1856$1_3@127.0.0.1>


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

I can't recommend spending the money to partition until you can demonstrate the need: That means on a test machine rather than in production.

But I can recommend that you begin evaluating the path to partitioning in terms of hash, range, list, subpartitioning, etc. And determine how you will get there. If you are going to have to do it soon ... I'd rather do it with 700M rows than 4B rows.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeed.com       The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Received on Wed Dec 22 2004 - 19:03:23 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US