From: krichine@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Synonyms are a pain! Date: 2000/05/05 Message-ID: <8ev9bk$lhl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 References: <957469924.8355.0.pluto.d4ee154e@news.demon.nl> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.91.109.234 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri May 05 20:02:06 2000 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDkrichine Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; StarOffice/5.1; Win32) > I'm a little uncertain about private synonyms. I'd have to create a set for > each user, right? Then I'd have to grant the usual privileges (INSERT, > DELETE, UPDATE, DELETE) to each user. > > If this is all correct, with 10-30 possible users, does it make any sense to > use private synonyms? > > Thanks very much >>> Robert Only if two separate schemas share the same database instance and you have two distinct groups of users, one accessing one of the schemas: user11, user12... access schema1 user23, user24... access schema2 Generally, the more users you have, the less attractive this option is. The only way out though is to split the database allowing each schema reside in its own database, then you could use public synonyms. Kirill Richine Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.