Re: Table/Index Partition Schemes

Dereck L. Dietz wrote:
> Which would be the more appropriate way to define partitioned indexes on a
> partitioned table:
>
> table_1
> table_1_partition_2000 data tablespace 1
> table_1_partition_2001 data tablespace 2
> table_1_partition_2002 data tablespace 3
>
> index_1
> table_1_partition_2000 index tablespace 1
> table_1_partition_2001 index tablespace 2
> table_1_partition_2002 index tablespace 3
>
> or
>
> index_1
> index_1_partition_2000 index tablespace 1
> index_1_partition_2001 index tablespace 2
> index_1_partition_2002 index tablespace 3
>
>
> Is one any better than the other or are they both about the same for
> performance and/or manageability?

What is it about what you posted that indicates a difference? The question is one of global versus local indexes and one might consider that little things like version, type of partitioning, and amount of data and how the index will be used would be important. One might. <g>

PS: And please, whoever you are, don't tell me it is obviously range partitioned by year. There are many alternatives to that scenario that fit with the example.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
Oracle Ace Director & Instructor
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org