Re: number of logical partitions in an extended parition

On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 19:52:11 +0000, Paul Brewer wrote:

> "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.02.26.20.10.52.463864_at_yahoo.com.au...

>>
>> I question why any application thinks it needs 120 tablespaces anyway.
>> Size doesn't mean lots of tablespaces. Tablespaces should break the
>> database up into manageable bits and pieces, each of which shares similar
>> growth characteristics and backup needs, and which gives you adequate data
>> availability whilst offline maintenance takes place somewhere else in the
>> database. I'd be astonished if PS really needed 120 tablespaces.
>>

Funny you should mention that. Just after posting the above, I had a new Peoplesoft user on my course, and he was describing the mess he has to administer. Much along the lines you've just outlined!!

> I have (just the HR module).
> There are over 3000 tables. No primary keys, no referential integrity, and
> no constraints (except not null on varchar2s and numbers, in response to
> which the application inserts a single space and zero respectively).
> If you don't believe this (and I wouldn't blame you), ask Nuno.
>

It's a shocker, no?! My poor student got all excited about Materialized Views. Until the slide came up that said 'not available for tables without a Primary Key', and I made the flippant coment 'which shouldn't be too much of a restriction, since this is a relational database we're managing here'. The poor bloke nearly cried!!

Regards
HJR
> Regards,
> Paul
Received on Sun Mar 02 2003 - 12:51:45 CST