at"@ wrote:
> DA Morgan wrote:
>
>
>>In a single schema?
>>In a single database?
>>Across databases?
>>For disaster recovery?
>>For a reporting data mart?
>>Just to waste disk space? ;-)
>
>
> I wasn't going to get into the details too much as my original question
> refered to a SQL solution, but since I'm considering replication now:
>
> Table 1 is accessed via a database link. It is a production server and
> I don't want to do anything other than read from it.
>
> Table 2 is on a new box that I'm building for research purposes which
> contains data similar to Table 1 but lots more (Time/Sources etc).
>
> So Table 2 is Table 1 with more data, hence, I need to use a separate
> sequence to generate new rows in Table 2. I can't see Table 2 being a
> materialized view and I don't mind so much about updates/deletes because
> I never ever manipulate data in Table 1 after insert as a rule.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin
So why would a materialized view not be a good solution? Looks like a
reasonable solution to me.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Received on Mon Sep 05 2005 - 11:27:31 CDT