Re: Large table monthly switch design problem

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:00:10 -0700
Message-ID: <1120071616.499845@yasure>

schonlinner_at_yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi DA Morgan,
>
> [...]
>

>>What you describe is a nightmare.
>>Why aren't you using Partitioning?

>
>
> We currently *are* using partitioned tables, and it *is* a nightmare,
> because in order to satisfy the quality check team we need to
> create a (partitioned) copy of the original (partitioned) table in
> order to allow them a real world test before putting it into
> production.
>
> I'm looking for a way to circumvent creating a copy of the fact table.

This makes no sense whatsoever. If the partition is properly defined there is nothing to test other than the data dictionary information defining the partition's contents.

But Ok ... humor them ... use transportable tablespaces.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

Received on Wed Jun 29 2005 - 14:00:10 CDT