All else being equal, is local partitioning any better than range partitioning? I've got an set of PK indexes that are all range-partitioned on the same boundaries as the underlying table. Is it worth the (nontrivial) time to convert them?
Printable View
All else being equal, is local partitioning any better than range partitioning? I've got an set of PK indexes that are all range-partitioned on the same boundaries as the underlying table. Is it worth the (nontrivial) time to convert them?
What do you mean exactly by: LOCAL PARTITIONING?
range-partitioning is good for historical or old data.
You dont want your OLTP system increases time response
because there are old data along new data in the index.
Just an hipotetical example.
F.
It sounds as though your Tables are Paritioned by RANGE and your Indexes are Locally Paritioned.
I think you may have your terminology mixed.
In < 9i the partition Types available are RANGE and HASH
9i introduced a new type called LIST partitioning.
Indexes on the partitioned table, can be LOCALLY of GLOBALLY partitioned, (prefixed or non-prefixed.)
Cheers,