Re: Materialized Views and Paritions in fact tables

From: joel garry <>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:46:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Dec 28, 6:54 pm, z1hou1 <> 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

This would seem to say yes, if you use the correct definitions, and shows how to tell:


-- is bogus.
If at first you don't succeed, stay away from the rocks.
Received on Tue Dec 29 2009 - 10:46:33 CST

Original text of this message