Re: Partitioned table or several smaller tables?

Yes, we do have the patitioning option. So it is not a concern here. The question is whether we should put rarely accessed data together with active data all in one single table. We will always query one partiton, in the case of partitioned table, or one table, in the case of several indivisual tables, at a time. Data volume is fairly big. Would putting all the data into one single table degrade query performance? Any other issues that might impact us negatively, if we go with partitioned table?

John

Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1092406398.155723_at_yasure>...
> John wrote:
>
> > Hi group,
> >
> > Say I have 3 tables with same structure and differnet data, one
> > current the other 2 historical. I only occasionally need to access the
> > historical data. Would you put 3 of them into a single partitioned
> > table? Why? Thanks for sharing!
> >
> > John
>
> Based on what you've indicated I'd put it all together into a single
> table and find something else to concern myself with.
>
> On the other hand if you gave version and edition information, some
> sense of the number of rows and how the table(s) are used I might
> conclude the cost of the partitioning option quite reasonable.
>
> But assuming the partitioning option is already paid for ... I'd
> always use a partitioned table.
Received on Sat Aug 14 2004 - 09:27:40 CDT