range vs local partitions
DBAsupport.com Forums - Powered by vBulletin
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: range vs local partitions

  1. #1

    range vs local partitions

    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?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    534
    What do you mean exactly by: LOCAL PARTITIONING?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    282
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,203
    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,
    OCP 8i, 9i DBA
    Brisbane Australia

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width