mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.
Partitioning is a tool and tool is used for a purpose. There are some
scenarios when partitioning is quite a good tool. For example I have a
transaction table that grows 100.000.000+ rows each month and also each
month one month of old transactions has to be archived and deleted
afterwards . With one-month range partitioning this is a piece of cake,
without it would be a challenge (database is running 24x7, almost no
downtime).
--
Dusan Bolek
Received on Fri Apr 08 2005 - 10:45:59 CDT
