Re: webmail user mailbox schema design?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 18:12:23 -0300
Message-ID: <49fb65b8$0$23754$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>>Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
>>
>>>On May 1, 9:37 am, ddf <orat..._at_msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Partitioning the MESSAGES table on user_id could provide speed and
>>>>manageability by segregating each users messages to a single
>>>>partition; partition pruning would eliminate visits to unrelated
>>>>partitions effectively reducing the data set to a fraction of the
>>>>total number of messages stored.
>>
>>>I struggle to understand a single advantage of partitioning. Well, you
>>>listed one advantage -- easy deletion. However, since when deletion
>>>became a determining factor in database design?
>>
>>What's even more striking and even harder to understand is someone
>>suggesting highly detailed, very explicit physical implementation
>>details on the basis of the sketchiest of problem statements.
>>
>>I am sure you would agree: Anyone doing so has no idea what they are
>>talking about.
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 18:12:23 -0300
Message-ID: <49fb65b8$0$23754$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
ddf wrote:
> On May 1, 1:15 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote: >
>>Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
>>
>>>On May 1, 9:37 am, ddf <orat..._at_msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Partitioning the MESSAGES table on user_id could provide speed and
>>>>manageability by segregating each users messages to a single
>>>>partition; partition pruning would eliminate visits to unrelated
>>>>partitions effectively reducing the data set to a fraction of the
>>>>total number of messages stored.
>>
>>>I struggle to understand a single advantage of partitioning. Well, you
>>>listed one advantage -- easy deletion. However, since when deletion
>>>became a determining factor in database design?
>>
>>What's even more striking and even harder to understand is someone
>>suggesting highly detailed, very explicit physical implementation
>>details on the basis of the sketchiest of problem statements.
>>
>>I am sure you would agree: Anyone doing so has no idea what they are
>>talking about.
> > I fail to see the 'highly detailed' nature of my response. Please > post the text from that offering where my thought became an explicit > method. Include the DDL I supplied as well. > > David Fitzjarrell
One does not need to provide DDL to make highly detailed and explicit design suggestions like partitions. Received on Fri May 01 2009 - 23:12:23 CEST