Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Partitions for relatively small tables

Re: Partitions for relatively small tables

From: Sybrand Bakker <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:03:11 +0200
Message-ID: <vftjp1pfds902@corp.supernews.com>


You didn't read the answer of Dusan.
What you are up to is implementing panecea solutions instead of analyzing *why* you are having performance problems. Hence, you are going to cure symptoms, instead of *curing* the issue, likely ending up with one panecea solution after the other, until your system truly comes to a stand still. Five thousands records is absolutely nothing. But, as you have already decided what to do, and also don't post any details on your configuration, why are you asking for help at all?
You don't want help, you want absolution!

-- 
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

to reply remove '-verwijderdit' from my e-mail address

"viktor" <vikingil_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:946871c0.0306290127.430230a8_at_posting.google.com...

> Hi,
> I currently have 14 tables each should populate with 5000 rows in a
> half an hour and this is only now...
> This is a real performance issue and I want to squeeze the best out of
> my system which (you guest it) isn't that new nor fast.
> Will partitioning will gain me performance?
> Is there are reasons why I shouldn't use them on relatively small
> tables?
> As I asked before I also referring to working with the table after the
> load issues like performing selects and removing data...
> Thanks,
> Viktor
>
> > pagesflames_at_usa.net (Dusan Bolek) wrote in message
> > news:<1e8276d6.0306270026.6a6ddaef_at_posting.google.com>...
> > If I understand you correctly, you are inserting 5000 rows each half
> > hour and want to keep them for two weeks. You're asking if you should
> > put each 5000 in its own partition. Answer is NO. I think that you
> > should use simply inserts. You probably wouldn't get any performance
> > gains with 5000 rows in partition.
> > Also I can't understand your performance issues, on any decent system
> > you must be able load 5000 rows in no time and your system seems to me
> > like very low loaded one. Have you encountered any real performance
> > issue or you're just trying to improve just for improvement?
Received on Sun Jun 29 2003 - 06:03:11 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US