Path: news.easynews.com!easynews!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr13.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!1af50a29!not-for-mail From: "Stephen Ferracioli" Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server References: <3d5206f8$0$227$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com> Subject: Re: Mass Deletions From Tables Lines: 26 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.83.249.3 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com 1028823187 ST000 63.83.249.3 (Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:13:07 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:13:07 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: OP]_R\OGGJVURRH]^JKBOW@@YJ_ZTB\MV@BZMVMHQAVTUZ]CLNTCPFK[WDXDHV[K^FCGJCJLPF_D_NCC@FUG^Q\DINVAXSLIFXYJSSCCALP@PB@\OS@BITWAH\CQZKJMMD^SJA^NXA\GVLSRBD^M_NW_F[YLVTWIGAXAQBOATKBBQRXECDFDMQ\DZFUE@\JM Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 16:13:07 GMT Xref: easynews comp.databases.oracle.server:157282 X-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 09:11:07 MST (news.easynews.com) "Niall Litchfield" wrote in message news:3d5206f8$0$227$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com... > "Stephen Ferracioli" wrote in message > news:gkg49.798$UN5.58177778@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. My mistake. I meant to say that the data is stored in the sequence that it was loaded. Every record contains a unique ID associated with its packet and date/time that it was loaded.