Come on Niall.... be fair.
Were I to do a 'create table blah as select * from table1 order by X', it's
a fair bet that blah has records physically stored in X order.
Were you to do a SQL Load from a text file generated from SQL Server (perish
the thought) in a known order, then its equaly a fair bet that the table you
loaded in to has those records physically stored in that order.
The general point is true enough: the order of events in a table is about as
ordered as the order of events in my brain. IE, not very.
But it doesn't *have* to be an IOT.
Regards
HJR
"Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3d5206f8$0$227$cc9e4d1f_at_news.dial.pipex.com...
> "Stephen Ferracioli" <sferraci_at_pioneer-usa.com> wrote in message
> news:gkg49.798$UN5.58177778_at_newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > I'm pretty sure that I am deleting the *physically* first 500 Mb. I am
> loading a replacement set
> > of data. BW manages data by packets. The new packets are not available
to
> the user until I
> > delete the old packets and activate the new ones. The data is physically
> stored in the sequence
> > it was sorted. The "star schema" is a *logical* representation of the
data
> in BW. The foreign
> > keys of the star schema do not have any bearing on the sequence of data
in
> the fact table. SAP
> > uses a relational dbms but the data is accessed using a network of
> pointers. Really wild stuff.
>
> The only way in which the data could be stored "in the sequence in which
it
> was sorted" would be if the tables were index organised tables. I'd be
> surprised to find that this was the case.
>
>
> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> Audit Commission UK
> *****************************************
> Please include version and platform
> and SQL where applicable
> It makes life easier and increases the
> likelihood of a good answer
> ******************************************
>
>
Received on Thu Aug 08 2002 - 01:02:41 CDT
