Re: partioning option not worth it?

If you want to make an arugment with respect to the tight fisted CFO opening the checkbook ... see if you can find out the "actual" cost per hour of what you do from someone in finance. Or if the company's financials are public divide the overhead costs by the number of employees. Then figure out how many hours of your time equate to the purchase. Make your argument for it based on saving the company money ... not on technology.

Daniel Morgan

Bricklen wrote:

> We'll see I suppose how things turn out, if I can squeeze some cash out
> of the boss. We're in a small shop here -- I'm in charge of the
> dba/developer duties. Keeps things interesting, to say the least.
>
> The option I mentioned, about manually creating my own tables etc. to
> mimic partitioning (which I'd rather avoid having to do if possible!),
> is something that I will experiment with to see how it goes.
>
> We don't do a lot of cross-client querying anyways, so the effect of
> specific tables per client may not be that bad of an idea.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to reply to my earlier posts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bricklen
>
> Keith Boulton wrote:
> >
> > Sounds viable to me, because it is essentially the same thing as
> > partitioning does anyway.
> >
> > Bricklen Anderson <bricklen13_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b416ca2d.0202210805.4e91ca71_at_posting.google.com...
> > > I should probably clarify why I asked the question...
> > > My employer is, shall I say... cheap, and the chances of getting EE as
> > > well as the partitioning option are prettttty slim. I have used the
> > > EE + P.O. in my test database (as a trial), and the benefits were
> > > numerous. Most of the uses of PO are not necessarily crucial to our
> > > environment however, so I'm always looking for ways to improve
> > > performance. A thought of mine was to create tables based on the id
> > > of each client (about a 100 clients), for quicker response time when
> > > generating reports etc. We currently have about 60 million rows in
> > > our main table, which isn't huge, but within the next few months that
> > > is expected to increase to about 500M rows.
> > >
> > > just wonderin' if any of this sounds viable.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Brick
Received on Fri Feb 22 2002 - 11:37:49 CST