Re: tough choices

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:46:50 +1000
Message-ID: <40d9192d$0$18671$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

"Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> wrote in message news:40d91877$0$278$cc9e4d1f_at_news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> "Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message
> news:40d808e7$0$18194$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > I was suprised to learn that (range/list) partitioning costs extra on
> > > Oracle.
> >
> > Me too, mainly because it isn't true.
>
> Ian is correct - partitioning is an extra cost option in Oracle (though I
> understand that that extra cost can be close to zero if the deal is
> important enough :)). It does offer hash partitioning as well :)

Maybe that was Noon's point: that you pay for partitioning in Oracle, not for a particular partitioning method. Range/List doesn't therefore cost "extra" or more than Range/Hash. If you can do basic Range partitioning, you've already paid the necessary moolah for the partitioning option, and therefore Range, Hash, List, Range/Hash and Range/List partitioning are all standard components of that one option and, in that sense, come 'free'.

I assume that's what he meant, anyway.

Regards
HJR Received on Wed Jun 23 2004 - 00:46:50 CDT