Why you always firing me Blu,
I understood the case on that way, because the OP says two tables with same data.
Take for example
There are two servers each servers have 25 clients but the servers located in a two different places aproximately 500 km distance.
One master table has to be used all over the 50 clients. To acces the master table the second group of clients are always has to be depend the first server it is located 500km distance. I assumed this situation and suggested to use materialized view. Don't mistaken me.
After your correction I suggest the following link for OP
We're currently all reading and writing forum posts into a database whose server is probably more than 500km away from any of us. It works just fine.
That's not to say that there aren't any circumstances where it might be appropriate to replicate a table between two schemas, but the only reason the OP gave for doing so was supposed "performance issue because there are many jobs will access the table" - which is quite frankly idiotic.
Use one table.
Or come up with a good reason why you shouldn't.
You are advising the OP to use one table; it is an advice not a fruitful solution.
On my view, OP is an end level programmer not a top level decision taking authority to do structural changes.
Using one table is fewer headaches I agree.
But situation warrants a programmer what to do - how to do.
Oracle discussion forum is a tool of knowledge share it’s not having time constraint and financial constraint. Yesterday I tried to answer your post; due to network failure I am unable to post my answer. Nothing happen, today I can do. But some practical applications are highly time and cost effective.
Server1 and Server2 are located in different places; Group-A peoples access server1 and Group-B peoples access server2 but both the servers having same table same data. If network failure occurs both servers should perform individually (not depending network) and no one has to be kept idle due to the network failure. After getting the connection, the recent insertion and updation of server2 will be replicated to server1 and the same way the recent insertion and updation of server1 will be replicated to server2.
Wonderful feature of oracle materialized view helps to complete the above task peacefully. We are enjoying this feature for day to day practical needs. That’s why I strongly recommend the OP to create materialized view.
We have a master table .A schema and same table is in B (this has tables from all other schema A,,C ,D...)schema used for data warehousing (preparing reports).
Is this ok
Your question is too generic.
Typically, direct duplication of data is not a good idea, except for disaster recovery, though that is often achieved using hardware mirroring rather than software at the database level copying things.
Data Warehousing usually doesn't involve direct copies of data tables, but contains aggregated data in a specially designed datawarehous style schema (e.g. a star schema), containing facts and dimensions.