Not if you use the "UPDATE GLOBAL INDEXES" option available new from a 9i
store near you!
Regards
HJR
"Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:6DdY8.34793$Hj3.104960_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Hi DY,
>
> Close.
>
> Corresponding *Local* Indexes *don't* have to be rebuilt as the rowids
*have
> not* changed (as you said, no data is moved). You have the option to
> exchange related local indexes as well (INCLUDING INDEXES).
>
> But you're right in saying *global* indexes are unusable and need to be
> rebuilt.
>
> Regards
>
> Richard
> "D.Y." <dyou98_at_aol.com> wrote in message
> news:f369a0eb.0207140336.4f7f8404_at_posting.google.com...
> > dregar_at_yahoo.com (AndreSiregar 2002) wrote in message
> news:<303ac334.0207131938.361000cd_at_posting.google.com>...
> > > Is it advisable to perform partition exchange between tables in
> > > different tablespaces? I did a little experiment and it seems like the
> > > physical location of the data is not moved from tablespace A to B
> > > immediately (as seen in dba_segments). However, inserting new records
> > > in tablespace A, I can force these segments to be replaced by new data
> > > (and I guess moved to tablespace B). Am I interpreting Oracle
> > > correctly?
> > >
> >
> > Partition exchange merely exchanges the names of the segments involved.
> > System catalog is updated to reflect this. Locations of data segments
will
> > not be exchanged, but index segments need to be rebuilt since the old
> > rowids are no longer valid.
> >
> > > Sorry I don't have scripts that I can show as I'm writing this from
> > > home and the database is at work.
> > >
> > > Andre
>
>
Received on Sun Jul 14 2002 - 08:13:01 CDT
