Re: Secondary Tables and Performance

I don't know whoever at your company came up with that idea, but it is a really bad one.
How do you synchronize your 'master' and your 'slave'. You should devise a means to do that automatically, which adds to the overhead incurred in that database. What's more: if you design a process to automatically update, why don't you do that to the 'master' table directly. If you really need that there's something blatantly wrong with your application!

Hth,

--
Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
<dtubaugh_at_balinet.com> wrote in message news:7vkcch$5ca$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...
> Is there any reason to create secondary tables that are copies of the
> live tables for update purposes? We have the general understanding in
> our company that this is necessary for performance and security
> reasons. I can not think of a reason why this is needed. If someone
> could let me know a good reason for it I would appreciate it, or if the
> idea is invalid then that would be appreciated too.
>
> Thanks,
> Doug
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Received on Tue Nov 02 1999 - 00:37:24 CST