RE: RAC partitioning question
- From: "Walker, Jed S" <Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "tim@xxxxxxxxx" <tim@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:53:07 +0000
Greg,
I was just thinking about that and made some notes. My only thought (would need
to test) is whether I could still have a unique index on just the old PK column
without it having to be global. (I'll update on that)
For example:
Pk_id number
Start_time number
Pk on (start_time, pk_id)
Unique index on (pk_id)
Also, on Tim's point, I guess I could also make the old PK smaller since it
could wrap now that is appended to the start_time_in_millis columns. The chance
of rolling through, say 10000, sequence values within a second is almost nill.
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Greg Rahn
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:25 AM
To: tim@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RAC partitioning question
Any reason not to just add the date/timestamp column into the PK and make it
two columns? This would result in allowing the index to be local (the date col
is the partition key col) without any modification to the current table
definition.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Tim Gorman <tim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jed,
> Why not get rid of the sequence-generated PK column and instead make
> another NUMBER column the PK, itself generated both from the needed
> timestamp appended to a sequence generated data value to ensure it's
> uniqueness? If you have that, then you can RANGE partition on that
> NUMBER value according to your data manipulation requirements and also
> have a LOCAL partitioned index so that you have no GLOBAL index issues.
>
>
--
Regards,
Greg Rahn | blog <http://bit.ly/u9N0i8> | twitter <http://bit.ly/v733dJ> |
linkedin <http://linkd.in/gregrahn>
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
