Partitioning in SQL 2000

Is partitioning fact tables in SQL 2000 really inadequate compared to other
RDBMS out there ? I heard SQL 2005 has some cool stuff but in 2000, a lot
of datawarehouse have partitioning of data and I dont believe the
partitioned views are robust enough. Is that a true statement ?Robust enough for what? Your requirements are not necessarily the same as
others. In 2000 your only choice really is a Partitioned View which does
have limitations just like any other feature has limitations. Only you can
decide if it meets your needs or not. Yes 2005 has new partitioning
features and will fill in the voids for instances that the Partitioned Views
don't fit. But that does not mean that feature will be right for everyone
either. It all boils down to what you need to do and how you do it.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23QS$1jrfFHA.2152@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Is partitioning fact tables in SQL 2000 really inadequate compared to
> other
> RDBMS out there ? I heard SQL 2005 has some cool stuff but in 2000, a lot
> of datawarehouse have partitioning of data and I dont believe the
> partitioned views are robust enough. Is that a true statement ?
>|||partitionning works fine in SQL 2000.
you have to use the right partition and create good queries to insure that
you'll ask for a limited number of partition only.
if your partition is by year, but you never filter on the year, then the
advantage of the partition is not used.
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23QS$1jrfFHA.2152@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Is partitioning fact tables in SQL 2000 really inadequate compared to
> other
> RDBMS out there ? I heard SQL 2005 has some cool stuff but in 2000, a lot
> of datawarehouse have partitioning of data and I dont believe the
> partitioned views are robust enough. Is that a true statement ?
>