Re: Partitioned table or several smaller tables?

John wrote:

> 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:
>>
>>

As Daniel wrote, if you have it use it. Other than some extra thinking on the DBA's part when creating the partitioned table and indexes (syntax, storage, type of partitioning), it should have only positive impact. Read the docs,

Go back to the original problem: why were three tables created instead of one? Most likely, whatever problem was being solved would be better solved by partitioning.

--Mark Bole Received on Sat Aug 14 2004 - 10:33:52 CDT