General comments in line.
Object (0) though is that clustered tables cannot
be partitioned. This could be a severe limitation
on future growth, and add administrative woes as
the database increases in size.
Rebuttal (0) - the database is too small, and the
licence fee too high to cater for part
essage-
> From: Tim Gorman [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 4:20 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Re: single clustered tables
>
> Not true. Many folks think a data warehouse is "read only". There is a
> hu
Not true. Many folks think a data warehouse is "read only". There is a
huge difference between being "designed to optimize reading" and being
"read-only"...
- Original Message -
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 2:40 PM
> Obj
Objection #6) Clusters do not impose a physical sort order upon the data;
they only impose the physical "clustering" of rows with the same data values
in it's cluster-key columns to reside in the same database blocks. Will the
same cluster-key values be found in the same blocks? Yes. Are they
Objection 1) Most Oracle docs recommend: don't store data in
clusters
if it's going to be updated frequently. Updating clustered tables is
bad.
If its being updated, its not a true data warehouse.
Scott Shafer
San Antonio, TX
210-581-6217
> -Original Message-
> From: Bi
