LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (April 1999, week 3)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:   Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:36:06 -0400
Sender:   "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject:   Fwd[2]:Re:Oracle and SAS
Content-Type:   text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

This seemed to bounce when I sent it before.


I'm certainly no Oracle expert, but one option might be to create separate views for each year. They wouldn't consume the amount of storage that separate tables would demand.


Bob Abelson Westat

____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Oracle and SAS Author: Jules Bosch <jxb@BELLATLANTIC.NET> Date: 4/15/99 7:08 PM

Apologies to all if this appears twice but I posted it much earlier today from another venue and it seems it never made it.

I'm seeking some comments or suggestions from an Oracle dB expert re: the following.

I am responsible for producing SAS reports from a rather large Oracle dB. I have no responsibility for the dB. The dB is updated monthly with the previous month's information. Each time there is an update (monthly) a new table is created with twenty-four months of data as in dollar1-dollar24 plus keys. By way of example, the Dec 98 update includes data for the twenty-four month period Jan 97-Dec 98. And, of course, the Jan 99 update includes data for the twenty-four month period Feb 97-Jan 99. Obviously a large amount of data replication.

The project is young and the DBA knew that sooner or later this data replication problem would have to be solved. So, the DBA proposes creating an Oracle table that will contain sixty months (five years) of data, e.g. dollar1-dollar60 plus keys. I suggested a separate Oracle table be built for each year as it makes my life a little easier but the DBA claims separate yearly Oracle tables would take up 60% more space than the five-year table and more processing time. The DBA may be right but I have no way of knowing for sure. I know counting columns and bytes yields an answer but there more issues re: blocks, etc.

Of course, there may be other approaches to this problem, too. So, any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Jules Bosch

Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page