Re: Limit on number of values for list partition?

On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 22:11:58 +0000, M2 wrote:

> Yeah, I think I was a bit confused too. I was struggling with the idea of
> how to partition some data that just didn't fit. I have since realised the
> folly of this and decided to bite the bullet and introduce a column
> specifically as a partition key.
>
> This seems to look like it will work a charm using list based partitioning
> but alas our production database is still 8.1.7. For the life of me I cannot
> see how to do it range based partitions.
>
> The "key" will contain a year and then a session code and will look
> something like "200340" or "200270" (the "40" and "70" being different
> sesmesters). Using the list based partition it was easy, create a partition
> for each major session and off you go. But the range based idea has me a
> little confused. If I have a range that says LESS THAN ('200341') (to ensure
> "200340" fits) then does "200270" get placed within this partition? I assume
> it does unless I create another range for LESS THAN ('200271') but what
> happens then? "200270" is seemingly suitable for both partitions. I am
> assuming that Oracle will go for the "best match" and that "200270" will be
> destined for the "200271" partition otherwise I don't understand how it can
> ever work. Are these assumptions valid?
>

See if I can cut to the chase.

If I have a range partition that says:

partition by range (value)
P1 values less than 101 tablespace X
p2 values less than 201 tablespace Y
p3 values less than 301 tablespace Z

...then a value of 99 will be housed in P1, tablespce X. 99 is less than 101, 201 and 301. But the way range partitioning works is that the first partition that passes the test is the one that gets to house the value.

Let me know if that doesn't clarify things for you.

Regards
HJR Received on Wed Mar 05 2003 - 04:40:48 CST