unless you can drop and rebuild the entire table everytime
it
|receives updates. Single-clustered tables do not appear to have these
|updating problems.
|
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Jonathan Lewis
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network
, use an index-organized table.
Rebuttal 5) That does have significant updating problems, and is not
practical unless you can drop and rebuild the entire table everytime it
receives updates. Single-clustered tables do not appear to have these
updating problems.
Again, comments regarding the above
: Bill Becker [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 3:22 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: single clustered tables
Hello,
Env: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris 2.7
Someone has suggested the following idea, and I'm wondering
if this is good/bad. Any comments
and rebuild the entire table everytime it
receives updates. Single-clustered tables do not appear to have these
updating problems.
Again, comments regarding the above or other related info is appreciated.
Thanks to any responders.
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 3:22 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: single clustered tables
Hello,
Env: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris 2.7
Someone has suggested the following idea, and I'm wondering
if this is good/bad. Any comments, pro or con
: 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
huge difference between being designed to optimize reading
