Path: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news2.euro.net!newshub1.home.nl!home.nl!not-for-mail From: Frank Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server Subject: Re: Replication by materialized view Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:47:34 +0200 Organization: @Home Benelux Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: cc28855-a.hnglo1.ov.home.nl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl 1065782427 1821 217.121.193.81 (10 Oct 2003 10:40:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.nl NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:40:27 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: Xref: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com comp.databases.oracle.server:244984 ITAPORT06 wrote: > I have to replicated (read-only) a single table from 6 different > databases to one central target database. I understand that making use > of the materialized view is the easiest method. I assume that there > is no difference between making use of the snaphot or materialized > view commands. Is this true? > Yes. snapshots == materialized view (as you could have read in the manual) > The source databases are running on WINNT 8i rel 8.1.7.4 > For the target I can choose: Implement 8i or going to 9i > For me is the benefit to get some experience with 9i but are there > also complications for the materialized replication because of using > the 9i against the 8i > Yes - is there a question hidden here? If so, I missed it -- Regards, Frank van Bortel