Re: modifying and adding columns to a big table

Rob Cowell wrote:

>Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
>
>>2. 1.3M rows is so small it is hardly worth partitioning. This is a very
>>small table. I hope
>>you didn't expend the money for EE just for this.
>>
>>
>
>That's a bit of a generalistaion. Partitioning can be for performance,
>not just administration.
>
>I work with some similar sized (assuming his rows aren't 4Mb each, why
>do people quote table sizes in numbers of rows?) tables that are hit
>hundreds of times a day to read about a 10th of all the rows for report
>generation, depending on the value of a certain key. Partitioning on
>that key drastically reduces scan times, because we don't need to scan
>the whole table, but an index wouldn't be selective enough to be worth
>using.
>
>

Tables that are ht hundreds of times per day to read about a 10th of the rows probably
have all of the information cached in memory unless they are very large tables which is why
my comment.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)