Typical "canned" answer is try to partition by a numeric.  We partition by
a date when we can.  

I'm torn between the order of one and two, but that is more personal
preference.  I generally try to partition by the fields that make joins run
best and the ones that make maintainence better if I can. 

I would definately try to make the primary partition the one most used in a
where clause... make the access fast as you can. 

9.2 has some way better partitioning options than 8i has... we have been
"just" using those because we are in the process of getting up to speed on
our new 9i upgrade.


April

-----Original Message-----
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: 1/10/2003 8:33 AM


Hello,

We are still struggling with partitioning of star schema fact tables.
As of yet, we haven't been able to test/compare any of the following
scenarios (because we're not yet legal with the partitioning option),
so I am posting in the hope that someone with more partitioning
experience will comment. This will eventually be implemented on 9.2
on Solaris.

By star schema fact tables, I am referring to tables that consist mostly
of surrogate key id fields (used for joining to dimension tables),
and numeric fields containing a quantity measure.

The id fields are never directly referenced in WHERE clauses of queries
as
*filter* conditions, but are frequently referenced in join conditions.
The
filter conditions usually reference fields in one of the dimension
tables
joined to be the fact table.

We have developed some (untested) practical guidelines for partitioning.

They are listed from best to worst. These are intended to optimize
querying
(not the incremental loading), and they apply to tables rather than
indexes. (We are creating a similar list for indexes) Here they are:

1) partition by a field most frequently referenced in the WHERE clause
   as a filter condition; subpartition by a field less frequently
   referenced as a filter condition. This enables a double
partition-pruning.
2) partition by a field most frequently referenced in the WHERE clause
   as a filter condition; subpartition by a field frequently
   referenced as a join condition, where the joined-to table is 
   partitioned exactly the same way. This enables partition-pruning
   and partition-wise joins.
3) partition by a field in the table that is often referenced
   in WHERE clauses as a filter condition; this enables partition
   pruning.
4) partition by a frequently-used join field where the joined-to table
   is partitioned exactly the same; this enables partition-wise joins.
5) partition by a frequently-used join field. 
6) partition by something is usually better than not partitioning at
all.

In many cases, we have to go all the way to #5 before this applies. As I
said,
the fact table id fields are never referenced in WHERE clauses, the
dimension
tables are rarely large enough to be partitioned, and the WHERE filter
conditions
usually apply to a dimension table, so we wind up partitioning by an id
field
frequently used in a join clause. This id field is often a date_id
field,
which is used to join to a dates dimension table, because a date range
is
frequently used as a filter condition in queries.

Questions:
1) Do you agree with the ranking above?
2) Is there any substantial benefit to partitioning a fact table by an
id
   field, when the id field is used to join to a non-partitioned
dimension
   table which is referenced in a filter condition?

Thanks to all who made it this far. 
More thanks to any responders.
Most thanks to those with helpful comments.
All-thanked-out, Bill.

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: 
  INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).



The information contained in this communication,
including attachments, is strictly confidential
and for the intended use of the addressee only;
it may also contain proprietary, price sensitive,
or legally privileged information. Notice is
hereby given that any disclosure, distribution, 
dissemination, use, or copying of the information 
by anyone other than the intended recipient is 
strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If you 
have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete
this communication, and destroy all copies. 


Corporate Systems, Inc. has taken reasonable precautions 
to ensure that any attachment to this e-mail has been 
swept for viruses. We specifically disclaim all liability 
and will accept no responsibility for any damage sustained 
as a result of software viruses and advise you to carry out 
your own virus checks before opening any attachment.

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: April Wells
  INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).

Reply via email to