I think that performance better partition table than non-partition table. How to assure partition table is better than non-partition table at SELECT operation?
I have compare a specific query EXPLAIN PLAN at partition table and non-partition table. both tables data is same. Is it true way or not?
Our application is using a two instance, one for the live active data and the other for the reports data. We have a process which moves the data from the live instance to reports instance every night. In a single db environment the process is working without any issues. However when we move to the RAC environment the reports db's (insert) in large table get locked and we are unable to insert data to the reports db.
What we are performing is:
Insert into my_table_rpt select * from may_table_live@db_link_to_livedb;
Issues:
my_table_rpt get locked
We have found the workaround by disable locking in destination and subsequent to the insert enable locking
ALTER TABLE my_table_rpt DISABLE TABLE LOCK;
Insert the data to the reports database table
Then
ALTER TABLE my_table_rpt ENABLE TABLE LOCK
Question:
Why does the large destination table (my_table_rpt) get locked in the RAC environment?
I have a table that partitioned into six partitions. each partitions placed in different table space and every two table space placed it on a different hardisk
when I will do query select with the non-partition keys condition, how the search process ? whether the sequence (scan sequentially from partition 1 to partition 6) or partition in a hardisk is accessed at the same time with other partition in other hardisk. ( in the image, partition 1,4 accessed at the same time with partition 2,5 and 3,6)
Can i alter the table to create partition on non partition table, i have tried and could not create it. Do we have some other means to do it as this is the live table and cannot drop them else will lose the data.
Can I add range sub partition to a hash partition table. Example like this.
CREATE TABLE test ( test_id VARCHAR2(10 ) , test_TYPE VARCHAR2(5) , CREATE_DATE date ) partition by hash (test_id, test_type) Partitions 3 SUBPARTITION BY RANGE (CREATE_DATE);
When Tried, I am getting syntax error as invalid option.
When I am trying to insert record from tbl_mittal into tbl_temp table. I am facing "ORA-14400: inserted partition key does not map to any partition" error
SQL> insert into tbl_temp select * from tbl_mittal; insert into tbl_temp select * from tbl_mittal * ERROR at line 1: ORA-14400: inserted partition key does not map to any partition
AS tbl_mittal is having hugh number of records so I am providing only few rows from tbl_mittal table as test data.
How to find the size pf a partition in a partition table?I guess we need to query views like dba_tab_partitions but I am not very sure. will running dbms_stats.gather_table_stats('schema_name,'table_name,'partition_name')
I think that performance better partition table than non-partition table. How to assure partition table is better than non-partition table at SELECT operation?
I have compare a specific query EXPLAIN PLAN at partition table and non-partition table. both tables data is same. Is it true way or not?
I am trying to add partition to table without partition
with following code
ALTER TABLE ACC_LOC1_TAB ADD PARTITION testpart BY RANGE (ALT_AUTHDT) (PARTITION UPTO_2010 values less than (31-mar-2010), PARTITION APR_JUN_10 VALUES less than (30-JUN-2010), PARTITION JUL_SEP_10 VALUES less than (30-SEP-2010), PARTITION OCT_DEC_10 VALUES less than (31-DEC-2010), PARTITION JAN_MAR_11 VALUES less than (31-MAR-2011))
I am using Oracle 11.2.0.1 Oracle Database.I have a table with 10 Million records and it's a Non Partitioned Table.
1) I would like to partition the table (with partition by range ) without creating new table . I should do it in the existing table itself (not sure DBMS_ REDEFINITION is the only option ) (or) can i use alter table ...?
2) Add one partition which will have data for the unspecified range.
i have table with range partition and list sub-partition..can i add one more list sub-partition if it is not possible , i have to drop first sub-partition.
I have a sql script where triggers, procedures and functions are written. The triggers are causing db outages and causing problems in the application as well.
I am trying my best but with my low experience and expertise, am not able to make good progress.
Scenario: Course enrollments are inserted, deleted and updated in course_main and course_users table. This is done in gui as well as in background snapshot scheduler in a cron process. Course_main table contains all course enrollments and course_users table has crsmain_pk1 as foreign key.
Its quite a big file and am not sure what should i paste here so am uploading the file in txt.
We have encountered dead locks in EBS R12 Database 10.2.0.3. Even after bouncing the appstier and dbtier completely does not release the locks. How to clear the locks?
I have a job which runs the procedure below concurrently in 4 different sessions; It updates two tables.
PROCEDURE UPDATE_TAB_1_AND_TAB_2( traceIdTab IN pl_sql table, individualIdTab IN pl_sql table, fileSeqIdTab IN pl_sql table,
[Code].....
Each session is passed a sequence generated file ID; so the records processed in each session are completely different.
However, everytime this job runs, without failure, ONLY TWO sessions process concurrently, while the other two sessions are blocked. Once the first two have finished, then the remaining two sessions start work.
I have being monitoring the sessions on each run daily, and realized that the first two sessions processing are each holding a transaction exclusive lock on objects; hence blocking the other two sessions.
When I tried to find the objects that the two running sessions have a lock on, I cant seem to find anything by searching DBA_OBJECTS.object_id. However, when I look for the objects that are being waited on, its either a partitioned table or a partitioned index on either table_1 or table_2.
At first, I thought it was an ITL lock and after much analysis, I did not find anything which definitely pointed to an ITL lock. However, just to make sure, I increased the INITTRANS value from 2 to 5, but the problem did not go away.
At this point, I have applied all I know to understand the origin of the TX lock and how I can work around this situation, and decided to ask higher powers in Oracle for advise.
I used v$locked_object and v$lock query to get the output.. But still I'm an one year exp in ORACLE. How to analyze the output of lock queries. what are the parameters to be analyzed on AWR report.
How to do proper performance checkup in ORACLE database as well analyze it.
At a customers site I see lot of long lasting library cache locks during a complex ETL run. Several Sessions run in parallel and create Database tables with dynamic sql ( CREATE TABLE AS SELECT ....) .
Sometimes these procedures wait for each other with wait event 'Library Cache' . I presume that this is a side effect of the dynamic DDL in the stored procedures. Is that possible even when the Procs create different Tables but reference the same tables in their SELECT clauses ?
I presume that this is plausible but I need some arguments to convince my colleagues.
On DB123, I have 2 KILLED sessions which are not disappearing and are holding locks on some tables in ONE schema.
The sessions belonged to ETL process and I have killed them last Friday after they have been hanging for 3 days. Unfortunately, I've also killed the corresponding Unix session - and now I've read on the Internet that in those cases the KILLED sessions might be hanging forever (=until the DB is shutdown).
how to partition and index my table for a special problem.
The table:
CREATE TABLE TEST ( ID NUMBER PRIMARY KEY, U_VALUE NUMBER NOT NULL, -- Ranges from 0 - 30.000.000 O_VALUE NUMBER NOT NULL, -- Ranges from U_VALUE - 30.000.000 CREATE_TS TIMESTAMP DEFAULT SYSTIMESTAMP NOT NULL, UPDATE_TS TIMESTAMP NOT NULL, ITEM_TYPE NUMBER NOT NULL --<< Only 4 different values >> );
As you can see, U_VALUE is ALWAYS lower than O_VALUE.I need to have the CREATE_TS in either main- or subpartition do drop the partitions after some time so i don,t have to use DELETE statements. The table has 360 millions rows.
The application has only 8 query which will always use a WHERE clause like this:
SELECT * FROM TEST WHERE U_VALUE <= :1 AND O_VALUE => :2 AND ITEM_TYPE = :3
1. Is there any good technique how to create a good index for the queries (application will execute 120 queries per second)?
All partitions were dropped, but three; these three returned the same error when trying to drop them:
SQL> alter table dw.F_TFP_CP_MONTH drop partition P_201112; alter table dw.F_TFP_CP_MONTH drop partition P_201112 * ERROR at line 1: ORA-01426: numeric overflow
SQL> alter table dw.F_TFP_CP_MONTH drop partition P_201111; alter table dw.F_TFP_CP_MONTH drop partition P_201111 * ERROR at line 1: ORA-01426: numeric overflow
SQL> alter table dw.F_TFP_CP_MONTH drop partition P_201110; alter table dw.F_TFP_CP_MONTH drop partition P_201110 * ERROR at line 1: ORA-01426: numeric overflow
So, the situation now is that the table only has these three partitions, and we are not able to empty the table, so that we can later purge it and recover the
space.
free that space and empty the contents of the table?
i want to ask about indexing in partition table. i have table that indexed by local index. when i want to select all data. I execute this query
select * from Book_Issue_Part where status='Pinjam';
but it does not select all data, only partly data have selected. is it a wrong query to select all data in indexing partition table? so what query should i execute to get all data.
We have a transaction table and has 30 million rows. The table is not partitioned till date. We need to create partition on this table. We had an idea of moving this data to a temporary table and create partition[range]on the original table and move the data back.
