I think I was right there with you in the 1995 timeframe, Jared. Thanks for requesting it. While we can see it has it's limitations, when properly used, it's at least a savings in object maintenance and administration. Michael Fontana Sr. DBA NTT/Verio -----Original Message----- From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jared Still Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:41 PM To: Oracle-L Freelists Subject: RE: RE: Index-Organized Table experiences On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 11:48, Michael Fontana wrote: > FWIW - > > Index-only tables (their IBM name) were in DB2 first, and have been > around for many, many years. > I recall officially requesting this in 1994/95. No doubt I was not the first nor the last to ask for it. As soon as you build a lookup/intersection table with 2/3 columns and learn that all data retrieval is from the index, the natural question is "Why don't you just let me build the index, without the table?" It would be interesting to know how many other requests they received for this. Jared ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------