Re: List partitioning

csn wrote:
> Aren't you mixing logical and physical here?... partitioning is the
> physical implementation.

No, not at all.

It may be clearer in the full paper (I just showed a snipet to give context to what I hoped to be the main topic, that is, whether the implementation of a large triple store would be good candidate for partitioning, and if so, to tap the wisdom of this group about the best way to go about it.

The authors are quite clear that they see the size of their table as the problem, and that the cure is to break the table into several (over fifty, in their case) smaller tables and then to hide the dirty deed from the end user by writing a Java wrapper around the whole thing so that the end users "sees" the data as if it were the original one huge table and writes queries against it accordingly.

Naturally, making several physical tables appear to be one larger table involves some physical to logical mapping (call it "virtuality") but thats just what happens, as I understand it, with Oracle's partitioned tables, except that the virtuality (making the many tables appear to be one table) is built into the database and not tacked on as an external application layer wrapper. Received on Sun Dec 02 2007 - 10:18:45 CST