|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
DB2 Guy
New User
Joined: 28 Oct 2008
Posts: 98
Location: Cubicle
|
|
|
|
If a table has multiple partitions, does that mean the table-space in which this table resides can have only "this table"?
This (above written text) I've been told by my DBA. But I'm kind of skeptical about this. This should depend on the table-space whether it can contain multiple tables or not. I tried in google and in Manuals, but I'm, probably, kind of stupid to understand on what key-words should I search on.
Can some one please assist me on this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sushanth bobby
Senior Member
Joined: 29 Jul 2008
Posts: 1020
Location: India
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Partition Tablespace supports only one table per tablespace.
Segment Tablespace supports multiple tables, each segment will contain data from only one table.
Simple Tablespace supports multiple tables. - each page might contain data from different table
Cannot be created from V9, but supported.
Try googling with keyword like
DB2+administration guide+v8
Sushanth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
| Quote: |
| But I'm kind of skeptical about this. |
And you are skeptical of what your dba tells you because. . . .?
At the top of the page is a link to "IBM Manuals" among which are manuals for several versions of DB2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DB2 Guy
New User
Joined: 28 Oct 2008
Posts: 98
Location: Cubicle
|
|
|
|
Hi Dick,
..because I percept the concept of table-sapce as... as if we have a big-container (table-space) and we put multiple small-containers (tables) in it for simple table sapce. Probably it's correct to thibk this way.
I thought partition table sapce means multiple big-containers...but it seems it's not that way.
I searched on IBM but again it seems I hit a wrong manual again.. www.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/techarticle/dm-0605ahuja2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
| Quote: |
| I thought partition table sapce means multiple big-containers... |
It is - they just have to all be the same type of container. . .
Suggest you look in the manual about the partitioning index. This may help clarify. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wanderer
Active User
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 199
Location: Sri Lanka
|
|
|
|
DBA is right.
The container concepts from DB2 LUW don't always have equivalent things in DB2 for z/OS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DB2 Guy
New User
Joined: 28 Oct 2008
Posts: 98
Location: Cubicle
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| It is - they just have to all be the same type of container. . . |
But if this container is capable enough to have multiple tables..as I said here
| Quote: |
| as if we have a big-container (table-space) and we put multiple small-containers (tables) in it for simple table sapce |
isn't it that way? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DB2 Guy
New User
Joined: 28 Oct 2008
Posts: 98
Location: Cubicle
|
|
|
|
| wanderer wrote: |
| The container concepts from DB2 LUW don't always have equivalent things in DB2 for z/OS. |
When will they differ then, please let me know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| It is - they just have to all be the same type of container. . . |
But if this container is capable enough to have multiple tables..as I said here |
A different table would equate to a different type of container. . .
Maybe looking at this from another perspective could help. . . The partitioning index determines which rows are placed in which partition. Indexes are created for a table, not a partition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wanderer
Active User
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 199
Location: Sri Lanka
|
|
|
|
| DB2 Guy wrote: |
| wanderer wrote: |
| The container concepts from DB2 LUW don't always have equivalent things in DB2 for z/OS. |
When will they differ then, please let me know. |
Since I don't have much experience in DB2 LUW, I can't compare well, but if you have any specific query about DB2 z/OS then I can tell if it is possible or not. Like the partition question here.
Until V7 there were lots of difference between DB2 z/OS and LUW. With V8 and V9, IBM has tried to make them somewhat similar to increase portablity especially of SQLs.
Partitioning concept is very different in z/OS though.
Anyway, since V8 you don't need an index for the table to be partitioned. The ranges can be defined in table DDL.
In V9 there is a concept of partition by growth which probably is somewhat similar to LUW(caution: I have limited LUW understanding)
The best place to look is DB2 z/OS manuals before coming to conclusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
