"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam_at_nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:b8du1vshj4u3qt609u9q8oniimtflpn7mf_at_4ax.com...
> >First of all I would like to question the need of a replica database
> >for reporting purposes. As for contention, this is simply not an
> >issue, if the application has been designed properly. Your post has a
> >distinct smell of finding a 'hardware solution' read 'workaround' for
> >what is in reality a software design problem.
>
> That's odd because everything I've read, including a book specifically
> on Oracle DBA suggests the schema designs and optimal database
> configurations for real-time and analysis are diametrically opposed,
> so you always have to choose either a compromise between the 2 or use
> separate databases and servers.
I'd say 'It depends'. It is *generally* true that reporting needs tend to
favour full table scans, denormalisation, summary management etc etc most of
which would be out of place in a pure OLTP environment. It is also true that
reporting can place severe stress on a system which adversely affects other
processes which compete for the same resources. However it is by no means
always the case that the above is true, and in fact in what is now over a
decade using IT I have yet to see a system that is Pure OLTP nearly all of
them require reporting, most of them don't need anything like the horsepower
of a data warehouse, as always YMMV. In addition as a reporting schema can
have select access to the base tables, reside on different disks, be updated
on a different schedule and still be hosted on the same machine even where
you do need a seperation of reporting and transaction processing this does
not necessarily imply a seperate DW box.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
*****************************************
Please include version and platform
and SQL where applicable
It makes life easier and increases the
likelihood of a good answer
******************************************
Received on Mon Jan 13 2003 - 03:47:09 CST
