Re: Challenge: Partitioning is a wrong idea

mikharakiri_nosp..._at_yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm returning to this topic because of rumors that "interval
> partitiong" would be the next new shiny administrative toy.
>
> Some time ago I asked what are the benefits of partitioned table
> compared to partitioned view. Now I ask why partition a table *at
all*?
> Is there logical difference between large and small table? Next, why
> partition by a certain column and not the other one? What range to
> choose? OK, monkey type DBA is not supposed to ask this kind of
> questions, but the idea of "scientific method" popularised by
Jonathan
> and the others recently certainly legitimaze it.
>
> It is undeniable that partitioning concept introduces extra
> complications. You have to be aware of many extra technicalities:
what
> is partition prunning, what is partition wise join, etc.
>
> Returning to the "scientific method" theme, a single test case can
> settle the issue once and forever. Create large table, fill in with
the
> data, and show how much does it take to accomplish a certain
> administrative tasks in both cases. I claim that for any
administrative
> task you suggest, I would find a way to accomplish it in reasonable
> time with normal table. In other words: partitioning buys up
*nothing*.
> Any takers?

Sure. Try deleting 1 years worth of data from a non-partitioned table that's 1 terabyte and holds 8 years worth of data. Received on Thu Apr 07 2005 - 13:30:32 CDT