Re: Table partitioning problem

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:23:55 +1000
Message-ID: <4080db90$0$12481$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Michel Cadot wrote:

> "Omi" <gg_at_chandiramani.org> a écrit dans le message de
> news:e01d2feb.0404161604.5335c038_at_posting.google.com...
> 

>>Hello there,
>>
>>I have a table in my application which can get very large. I'm using
>>9iR2 on Windows.
>>
>>The table has a DATE field, and due to the nature of the queries I run
>>on the table, it makes sense for the table to have 31 partitions, one
>>for every day of the month.
>>
>>However, I'm unable to create the table with the following SQL:
>>

[snip]

>>partition test_30 values (30),
>>partition test_31 values (31)
>>);
>>
>>I get syntax errors on the PARTITION BY RANGE line. It seems to expect
>>*only* a fieldname there.
>>
>>How do I create a table like this?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Omi

> 
> 
> Use PARTITION BY LIST instead.

I wouldn't do that for two reasons: one, list partitioning is fairly new, whereas range partitioning isn't (bugs?). And two, list partitions cannot be hash sub-partitioned, whereas range partitions can. The OP may never need hash sub-partitioning, it is true.... but then again, he might. Range partitioning will do what he definitely needs to do, and gives him flexibility in the future should business requirements need it.

Regards
HJR Received on Sat Apr 17 2004 - 02:23:55 CDT