Re: Index freelists

From: Natural Join B.V. <lex.de.haan_at_naturaljoin.nl>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:24:34 MET
Message-Id: <20040429142434.2816B17B5C4@ha-smtp2.tiscali.nl>

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_at_freelists.org
> put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
> --
> Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
> FAQ is at http://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_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thu Apr 29 2004 - 09:37:32 CDT