Re: Challenge: Partitioning is a wrong idea

From: HansF <News.Hans_at_telus.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:47:22 GMT
Message-Id: <pan.2005.04.07.21.49.14.773321@telus.net>

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:42:19 -0700, mikharakiri_nospaum interested us by writing:

>
> HansF wrote:

>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:05:49 -0700, mikharakiri_nospaum interested us

> by

>> writing:
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> Funny thing about the above statement:  the big benefit of

> partitioning is

>> from a developer's and user's perspective, they do not need to know

> about

>> partition pruning or partition wise join to get the related benefits.

>
>
> Well, views are supposed to be such an abstraction. A DBA/Data
> architect is worried about physical layout for the relations, while the
> user just see relations as logical entities. It came as a great
> surprise to me that views somehow don't work in such scenario, and we
> have to introduce a new concept.

Bottom line - who cares? Certainly not the users who get significant performance improvements under certain conditions and no performance hits under the rest.

>

>> So it's basically a case of moving the responsibility from the [get

> it

>> done fast at any cost] developers to the [the buck stops here] DBAs.

> <G>
>
> Hmm. I always wondered why I was never excited to be a DBA?

Obviously.

>

>> Of course, things like: transportable tablespaces allowing the

> buiding of

>> just the lastest set of data and snapping that into the warehouse,
>> requiring about 37 seconds of downtime in the warehouse;

>
> Well, inserting into the normal table is slow, but you have no downtime
> at all!

You obviously have never had a warehouse with '12 months data - archive the rest, but keep it nearline' requirements. LOL Received on Thu Apr 07 2005 - 15:47:22 CDT