Re: Materialized Views and Paritions in fact tables
From: joel garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:46:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <ed37ab86-e1a1-4467-bfc3-3b11047989c5_at_22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 28, 6:54 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
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:46:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <ed37ab86-e1a1-4467-bfc3-3b11047989c5_at_22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 28, 6:54 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
This would seem to say yes, if you use the correct definitions, and
shows how to tell:
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/oracle/article.php/3633971/Oracle-10g-Materialized-View-Enhancements-Part-2.htm
jg
-- _at_home.com is bogus. If at first you don't succeed, stay away from the rocks. http://www.signonsandiego.com/photos/galleries/2009/dec/28/top-photos-week-dec-27-2009/3865/Received on Tue Dec 29 2009 - 10:46:33 CST