Agreed, and grateful for the generous application of common sense, Greg. The only thing I'd add is to get rid of the NUMBER column representing a date/time and use a DATE or TIMESTAMP datatype. Can't say how many times the road to hell has been paved with unnecessary datatype conversions. No upside and plenty of downside. On 1/31/2012 11:16 AM, Greg Rahn wrote: > The restriction on unique partitioned indexes is such: > - Unique global partitioned indexes must always be prefixed with the > partitioning columns. > - Unique local indexes must have the partitioning key of the table as a > subset of the unique key definition. > > http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e25523/part_oltp.htm#VLDBG1369 > > My point is that there really is no difference between 1 column (timestamp > || sequence) or 2 columns (timestamp, sequence) for a PK. > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Walker, Jed S<Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> wrote: >> 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 >> >> >> > -- Tim Gorman consultant -> Evergreen Database Technologies, Inc. postal => PO Box 352151, Westminster CO 80035 website => http://www.EvDBT.com/ email => Tim@xxxxxxxxx mobile => +1-303-885-4526 fax => +1-303-484-3608 Lost Data? => http://www.ora600.be/ for info about DUDE... -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l