Re: Indexed Organized Tables

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:16:43 -0800
Message-ID: <41e30bb0$1_4@127.0.0.1>

Florian wrote:

> bdbafh_at_gmail.com wrote:
>

>> what version of Oracle, as the type TIMESTAMP should have a much finer
>> resolution than one second, not that centiseconds or milliseconds would
>> eliminate the race condition anyways.
>>
>> use a sequence to generate a numeric unique identifier and add that
>> column to the primary key - populate in the insert trigger if the
>> sequence.nextval is not included in the insert statement.
>> hth.
>>
>> -bdbafh
>>

>
> Well, we are actually not using the TIMESTAMP value (sorry), but a
> simple DATE column. As such a race condition is much more likely.
>
> So I take it then that it's not possible to create an IOT without a
> unique primary key?
>
> The sequence idea sounds good, but isn't that still going to slow down
> the index, having those identifiers in there also?
>
> Thanks!

You seem to now grasp the point of an IOT. Do you need the index? If you do ... then you do if you don't you don't.

What we are suggesting is the following: ALTER TABLE <tablename>
MODIFY column_name TIMESTAMP(9);

Everything slows down a database: Especially end-users. Rather than asking the question you need to create a test environment and find out whether it is significant or not.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Received on Mon Jan 10 2005 - 17:16:43 CST