Re: Materialized Views and Paritions in fact tables

From: Ed Prochak <edprochak_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:01:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4502d2c1-0538-4db5-9f53-6d59eb6d7fee_at_m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>

On Dec 28, 9:54 pm, z1hou1 <z1h..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a situation where I have a materialized view/log to refresh on
> commit on a fact table that is subject to archive considerations. The
> fact table is partitioned by date range.
>
> Now, the materialized view has very few rows and therefore not
> partitioned.
>
> My question is, if older partitions in the fact table are dropped
> because of an archiving exercise, what will be the state of the
> materialized view that was based on a view log set to refresh on
> commit.
>
> Thanking you and regards,
> z1hou1

To be honest, I do not know. Why don't you try it and find out? You do have a test instance to run this in right????  ed Received on Tue Dec 29 2009 - 10:01:12 CST