A telecom company wishes to generate monthly bills to include details of customer calls,
listed in order of time of call.
Which table organization allows for generating the bills with minimum degree of row sorting?
A.
a hash cluster
B.
an index cluster
C.
a partitioned table
D.
a sorted hash cluster
E.
a heap table with a rowid column
B
D
Agree with D
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14231/hash.htm
Thanks Vonpire!
D.
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14231/hash.htm#i1006536
Creating a Sorted Hash Cluster
B.
The table is not static, but instead is continually growing. If a table grows without limit, the space required over the life of the table (its cluster) cannot be predetermined.
I agree with KRA….
Vonpire – I have followed a lot of your answers here – your knowledge is commendable.
In this case, the document you pointed to also has a section ‘Situations Where Hashing Is Not Advantageous’ which tells us that in this particular case D would actually cause performance slowness of a kind.
Hence I reckon B is the only logical answer.
they are looking for minimum degree of row sorting, hence I feel D is also correct.
I would vote for D.
Vote for ‘sorted hash cluster’, D.
The question ask for ‘generate monthly bills to include details of customer calls, listed in order of time of call”. And, as show in this link:
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14231/hash.htm#i1006536
Creating a Sorted Hash Cluster
In a sorted hash cluster, the rows corresponding to each value of the hash function are sorted on a specified set of columns in ascending order, which can improve response time during subsequent operations on the clustered data.
D
As KRA mentioned – if table is continually growing and it size cannot be predetermined – then hash clusters are not advantageous. BUT in my opinion Telecom company is able to estimate table growth in future.
And second thing – in link given by TRi – there is an example referencing telecom company.
So not being completely sure – I vote for D
D