Re: CLUSTER TABLES

On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 19:19:34 -0800, DA Morgan <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote:

>Susanne wrote:
>
>> can cluster tables be partitioned in 9.2 ?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Susanne
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 02:57:20 GMT, "Jim Kennedy"
>> <kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >size of the primary key of the parent + ((size of the primary key of the
>> >children)* # of children) -((size of the primary key of the parent)* # of
>> >children)
>> >
>> >eg
>> >parent is employee where the primary key is ssn (varchar2(9))
>> >child is pay where the primary key is ssn (varchar2(9)) and date of payment
>> >(date which is 7)
>> >so if on average you have 300 children records then
>> >9 + (300 * (9+7))- (300 * 9) or
>> >9+ (300 * 7) = 2,109
>> >
>> >Jim
>> >"Albert Punsola" <apunsola_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:aufikr$6td$1_at_nsnmpen2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net...
>> >> Hello ,
>> >>
>> >> someone knows to help me?
>> >> someone knows how to calculate SIZE parameter when cluster object is
>> >> calculate? someone knows the formula?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Albert Punsola
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
>Are you trying to apply the meaning of the word "Cluster" from SQL Server
>to Oracle? They mean very different things.
>
>Either way ... look it up as Jim suggests or at http://tahiti.oracle.com
>
>Daniel Morgan

no - I don't know SQL server ..

the question was out of curiosity - well I checked tahiti (otherwise I wouldn't dare to ask a question here), but I didn't find a real answer. No concepts that describe such a combination, but also no rule that a cluster cannot be partitioned.

Maybe crosschecking the concepts, admin and performance tuning guide was not enough.

Would a partitioned cluster table make any sense? Could it (if technically possible) accelerate data access? The more I think about it, the more I tend to say no.

But I dont want to waste your time ...

thanks anyway!

Susanne   Received on Thu Jan 09 2003 - 13:26:11 CST