Re: Table partitioning problem

From: Michel Cadot <micadot{at}altern{dot}org>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:11:59 +0200
Message-ID: <40813c02$0$17516$626a14ce@news.free.fr>

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> a écrit dans le message de news:4080db90$0$12481$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au... [snip]
> 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
I agree, i was just talking about syntax but my (very short) answer don't say it. So thanks for giving these precise details.

Regards
Michel Cadot Received on Sat Apr 17 2004 - 09:11:59 CDT