Re: large table optimizer suggestions

mark thomas wrote:
> > Tests I conducted in the pasts demonstrated, that if you
> > don't have your table striped or partitioned across
> > multiple disks, parallel query is pretty useless.
>
> Yes, of course. Sorry my statement there was a bit too loose. I assumed
> it was implied that I have multiple disks, since there would be no
> expected gain otherwise. It also never occurred to me that anyone
> would expect that a 4,000,000,000 row table would reside on one disk.

4,000,000,000 * 80/Row = 320G. Maybe add 20% for overhead. http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_detail.do?product_code=PY054AA%23ABA

Then there are arrays that look like one disk... NAS Terabyte for $799 at Fry's.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/storage/0,39020448,39214338,00.htm