In the last episode (Feb 24), Michael Widenius said:
> Greg> I have an application for which it would be very convenient to be able
> Greg> to treat multiple tables as one table. (Specifically, I have
> Greg> time-series data which periodically gets partially moved to archival
> Greg> storage to save space, but I would like to be able to occasionally run
> Greg> various summary calculations on the whole data set.)
> Tim> Why allow changes at all? Why not let people set up their own 'merges'?
> Because if you are working on a set of tables you may want to change
> the set sooner or later. One could do this with 'drop table' +
> create, but it would be nice to be able to do it faster...
> I agree; The idea is that the MERGE tables should be able to directly
> use the indexes on the underlying tables; It's just a question of
> simulating the normal key functions on the mapped tables (In other
> words; When you search after a row you should have to do a key search
> on each of the merged tables).
You know, you're >< this far away from implementing partitioned tables
and putting Oracle out of business :) Consider adding the ability to
automatically create a new partition every xxx units (days,
auto-increment values, etc).