Challenge: Partitioning is a wrong idea

I'm returning to this topic because of rumors that "interval partitiong" would be the next new shiny administrative toy.

Some time ago I asked what are the benefits of partitioned table compared to partitioned view. Now I ask why partition a table *at all*? Is there logical difference between large and small table? Next, why partition by a certain column and not the other one? What range to choose? OK, monkey type DBA is not supposed to ask this kind of questions, but the idea of "scientific method" popularised by Jonathan and the others recently certainly legitimaze it.

It is undeniable that partitioning concept introduces extra complications. You have to be aware of many extra technicalities: what is partition prunning, what is partition wise join, etc.

Returning to the "scientific method" theme, a single test case can settle the issue once and forever. Create large table, fill in with the data, and show how much does it take to accomplish a certain administrative tasks in both cases. I claim that for any administrative task you suggest, I would find a way to accomplish it in reasonable time with normal table. In other words: partitioning buys up *nothing*. Any takers? Received on Thu Apr 07 2005 - 13:05:49 CDT