Re: Index freelists
- From: Natural Join B.V. <lex.de.haan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:24:34 MET
I agree that partition pruning becomes impossible for hash-partitioned indexes,
which means they must be accessed all of them for a bounded range predicate,
but the advantage of having multiple slave processes scanning single partitions
could easily outperform the benefit of partition pruning if you are limited to
a single slave per partition...
Cheers,
Lex.
>
> I think this would be an easy solution, however when you've just hash
> partitioned your index, range scans over it will be more inefficient if you
> have to scan across partitions...
>
> But as you say, you could get more bang per buck by just hash partitioning
> the indexes in 99% cases - if it gives you what you need without serious
> drawbacks (including future drawbacks when the system grows), then why not..
>
> Tanel.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
> --
> Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
> FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
