Re: Question about partitioning...

Hi Andy,

If you commonly join these tables together to get information over a period of months, then partitioning would be beneficial. You effectively have a partitioned table, only Oracle doesn't know about it. You them simplify your maintenance operations, simplify your queries, provide the optimizer with valuable additional information, simplify parallel operations, etc.

And you can very quickly create a partitioned table by exchanging all these tables into an empty partitioned structure.

One notable disadvantage though is it will cost you more :(

Cheers

Richard

Andy wrote:
>
> I have a different question regarding partitioning -
>
> The application has "period" tables, and I said that they were good
> candidates for partitioning. Someone said "Why" and I said "er, um,
> actually that's a good question."
>
> So, could someone tell me if it would be useful to use partitions in
> this case, or to leave them alone?
>
> The application has tables called (for example): TRANSACTIONS and
> BALANCES. Every month these tables are copied to period tables called
> TRANSACTIONS0207, BALANCES0207 and then truncated, ready to be
> populated with the current month's data. So, we have tables going back
> to TRANSACTIONS9901.
>
> Since all these tables are separate entities and have their own
> indexes, would there be any advantages in just allowing TRANSACTIONS
> and BALANCES to contain everything and partition them? The BALANCES
> table has about 400,000 rows, the TRANSACTION table 700,000.

Received on Tue Aug 13 2002 - 02:02:19 CDT