Re: Large table monthly switch design problem

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:02:51 -0700
Message-ID: <1120071776.874825@yasure>

schonlinner_at_yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi AK,
>
>

>>Can you stop exposing the table altogether, granting select privilges
>>to views only?

>
>
> Well, basically we can do so, but it does not help. If users ask
> how many bookings there have been from America to Tokyo in March 2004
> grouped by the airplane type used.
>
>

>>Can you just create another view for your quality check team?
>>That view should not include the oldest patition.

>
>
> Yes, we can do that, of course. But how do we do the production switch,
> i.e. putting exactly that "view" online? I know, it would be easy, but
> look:
>
> As mentioned before: I tested it using a view which then contained
> a union all over 24 tables containing the monthly data. But the
> performance was round about 3 times slower.
>
> The main problems are:
> 1. How can we give the quality check team a chance to test the data
> before going into production?
> 2. How can we put (almost) exactly that quality checked table into
> production?
>
> Best regards,
> Martin

Back to what I said above ... this is nonsensical.

If a partition is defined as:
VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('01-JUL-2005','DD-MON-YYYY')) TABLESPACE jun05data,

What do they think is going in there? Sliced tomatos? There is nothing to test.

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

Received on Wed Jun 29 2005 - 14:02:51 CDT