Re: Table-level replication

From: Frank van Bortel <frank.van.bortel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:28:54 +0100
Message-ID: <er6vt1$sqq$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>

DA Morgan schreef:
> Frank van Bortel wrote:

>> DA Morgan schreef:
>>
>>> Materialized view (older method) and Streams (newer 9i and 10g) and
>>> intended for data replication.
>>
>> Daniel, are you not mixing up Advanced Replication and MV's?

>
> I don't think so. A materialized view, on its own, will replicate data
> but it is not asynchronous and the OP indicated the connection, at
> times, may be down. Or at least that's my recollection and I'm sticking
> with it. ;-)

Erhm... MV's are refreshed when you like them to be refreshed. That's async to me (apart from refresh groups, that can refresh synchronously/asynchronously - internal to the group). Same for AR - AR uses MV's, or at least; it can.
>

>>> I would suggest you ignore Materialized Views if, as you previously
>>> stated, the connection may be down. Streams is asynchronous and can
>>> play catch-up. Materialized views are a maintenance nightmare.
>> AR can be - MV's - nope

>
> My point. And AR is not in the same galaxy, maintenance-wise as Streams.

Streams would be a valid choice for the OP, but I find it a bigger nightmare than MV's - even with additional logging.

MV's seem out of the question, as the OP wants parts of tables (this column yes, this not) only - not sure Streams can handle that, nor how conflict resolution works (which does work rather well with Advanced Replication)

-- 
Regards,
Frank van Bortel

Top-posting is one way to shut me up...

Received on Sat Feb 17 2007 - 07:28:54 CST