ve 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.
|
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Jon
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
fer
> San Antonio, TX
> 210-581-6217
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bill Becker [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 3:22 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> > Subject: single clustered tables
> >
> &
n this is a bad idea, just unusual.
>
> Objection 5) If you want rows stored in order, 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
e-
> From: 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 id
rows stored in order, 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 re
