Performance Tuning :: Create Hash Partition On Fact Tables?
Aug 5, 2010I have to create a hash partition on fact tables.. we can use temp tablespace or permanent tablespace.
View 10 RepliesI have to create a hash partition on fact tables.. we can use temp tablespace or permanent tablespace.
View 10 RepliesI created the 32 hash partition on a fact table. Based on hash parititon technique it should evenly distribute data accross the different partition.But when i analyze the table and check the distribution its not at all even.
P_Name Tabspace num_Rows
SYS_P21TBS_TBS0
SYS_P22TBS_TBS0
SYS_P23TBS_TBS0
[Code]....
At present we have a non partitioned table.
Can we apply redefinition and create range partition and hash sub partition on it?
So our situation is pretty simple. We have 3 tables.
A, B and C
the model is A->>B->>C
Currently A, B and C are range partitioned on a key created_date however it's typical that only C is every qualfied with created date. There is a foreign key from B -> A and C -> Bhave many queries where the data is identified by state that is indexed currently non partitioned on columns in A ... there are also indexes on the foreign keys that get from C -> B -> A. Again these are non partitioned indexes at this time.
It is typical that we qualifier A on either account or user or both. There are indexes (non partitioned on these) We have a problem with now because many of the queries use leading wildcards ie. account like '%ACCOUNT' etc. This often results in large full table scans. Our solution has been to remove the leading wildcard.
We are wondering how we can benefit from partitioning and or sub partitioning table A. since it's partitioned on created_date but rarely qualified by that. We are also wondering where and how we can benefit from either global partitioned index or local partitioned indexes on tables A. We suspect that the index on the foreign key from C to B could be a local partitioned index.
I see one of my SQL's which is ran by the user on a 10.2.0.3 database changing its SQL_ID after some runs even if the query is not changed a bit! However the HASH VALUE for this query remains the same.
how a same query can have different SQL_ID's but same HASH_VALUE?
Note: Statistics are not modified on the base tables of this query.
Getting an ORA-00060 in our database. This is the alert log:
Wed Nov 10 08:01:54 2010
Global Enqueue Services Deadlock detected. More info in file
/opt/oracle/admin/ngboot/bdump/ngboot1_lmd0_13119.trc.
This is part of the lmd file:
oprocp : (nil)
opid : 0
group lock owner : (nil)
xid : 0000-0000-00000000
dd_time : 0.0 secs
dd_count : 0
timeout : 0.0 secs
[Code] ......
How do I find the SQL causing this? I have the hash value of 3180952482. should I open up en SR as this i logged in an lmd trace?
Create small functional indexes for special cases in very large tables.
When there is a column having one values in 99% records and another values that have to be search for, it is possible to create an index using null value. Index will be small and the rebuild fast.
Example
create index vh_tst_decode_ind_if1 on vh_tst_decode_ind
(decode(S,'I','I',null),style)
It is possible to do index more selective when the key is updated and there are many records to create more levels in b-tree.
create index vh_tst_decode_ind_if3 on vh_tst_decode_ind
(decode(S,'I','I',null),
decode(S,'I',style,null)
)
To access the record can by like:
SQL> select --+ index(vh_tst_decode_ind_if3)
2 style ,count(*)
3 from vh_tst_decode_ind
4 where
5 decode(S,'I','I',null)='I'
6 group by style
7 ;
[code]....
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)
I want to know how the Oracle optimizer choose joins and apply them while executing the query. So that I will insure about optimizer join before writing any query.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have two fact table and both are partitioned on same key and have same columns. Is it possible to move the partition of one fact table to another.
View 2 Replies View RelatedCan 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.
What are the factors that decide on which column we should partition the table and which partition method we should chose.
View 2 Replies View RelatedWe have 525 partitions and we want find out partition wise total count. finding partitionwise count in a particular table.
View 12 Replies View RelatedI 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?
We have a large customer table so first thought was to partition.Also we see two union alls in the plan - can we introduce parallelism? Below is the plan - have attached a text file if difficult to read
SELECT V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.UID_V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP AS "UID",
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.ABA, V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.ADDRESS1,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.ADDRESS2, V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.ADDRESS3,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.ADDRESS4, V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.ALIAS,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.CITY, V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.COUNTRYCODE,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.CUST_CODE, V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.CUST_NAME,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.HEAD_OFFICE_IN,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.IDENTIFIER,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.IDENTIFIER_TYPE,
[code]...
Is it possible to build index partition in parallel?I tried following command
alter index <index_name> rebuild partition <partition name> online parallel 5;
It executed without complaining, but want to know if index partitions can be build in parallel?
I was confused by partitioed table, when i select a partition of table, how does oracle to scan blocks? it scan all blocks of table or scan a single partition blocks only?
SQL> Explain Plan For
2 Select Count(1) From Tb_Hxl_List Partition(p_L3);
Explained.
SQL> Select * From Table(dbms_xplan.display);
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 18 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | | |
| 2 | PARTITION LIST SINGLE| | 33115 | 18 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 3 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TB_HXL_LIST | 33115 | 18 (0)| 00:00:01 |
I am facing a problem in fetching / updating records from a customer details table having around 20 million records. The table contains around 30 fields with 'MOBILE_NO' as primary key. most of the queries are having 'mobile_no' in where clause .I am planning to hash partition that table using mobile_no column as there is no other column available which can be used for partition.
clarify whether creating hash partition on such key would increase performance of data extraction as I have read on net that hash partitioning is not effective for performance tuning.
As per Article mentioned in Oracle Base,I have converted non-partitioned table (1 million data) into range-partition table,but,I don't see performance improvement in explain .
View 9 Replies View RelatedI have a existing non partition table with more than 100 million records,planning to re design using Hash partition.This table doesn't has any range column to do range partitioning.
Table has 40 columns with a Primary Key on two columns (guest_sales_Id ,Version Flag). guest_sales_Id is unique for entire table but with anopther column version Flag declared as Primary key.(Version Falg will have only two distinct values in entire table)
If i do hash partition,do i need to declare on two columns which are declared ad Primary key ?If i use only guest_sales_id to declare hash prtition any issues ?
I have to do the optimization of a query that has the following characteristics:
- Takes 3 hours to process
- Performs the inner join with 30 tables
- Produces an output of 280 million records with 450 fields
First of all it is not feasible to make 30 updates (one for each table) to 280 million records.
The best solution that I had found so far was to create 3 temporary tables, where each of them to do the join with 1/3 of the 30 tables, and in the end I make the join between the main table and these three tables temporary.
I know that you will ask (or maybe not) to the query and samples, but it is impossible to create 30 examples.
how to optimize this type of querys that perform the join with multiple tables and produce a large output with (too) many columns.
We have a procedure, which do truncate to some of the tables. Most of the time it finished in short of spam of time. But from last few days, it is taking much longer time.
where should i start the investigation.
While trying partition exchange feature of Oracle with 2 hash partitioned tables, I come to know that I can't directly exchange partitions between 2 partitioned tables
I have two hash partitioned tables , so to move partition data from one table to another will include-
1) Exchange from partitioned table to non-partitioned table.
2) exchange from non-partitioned table to new partitioned table.
But I am not sure in which hash partition my data will go in new partitioned table (data need to be moved has single key value on basis of which tables are partitioned),
i am using 11.2.0.3.0 version of oracle. We are planning to move some ~40 tables/indexes to new encrypted tablespace as a part of TDE(transparent data encryption). Currently three tables are having size ~30GB and one having ~800GB other have <2GB in size. And tables/indexes are altogether placed in different tablespaces.
whether i should create as many no of encrypted table spaces as it was before as unencrypted tablespace? or I should create one encrypted tablespace and move all the tables/indexes into that?
I have tried a lot by alternate solutions like rearranging the order of tables in join and moving where conditions before but no success...Its a bottleneck and I could not have indexes on these tables in production...I want to change the approach in subquery
SELECT
g.COLUMN1,
g.COLUMN2,
e.COLUMN3,
g.COLUMN4,
MIN(e.dat1) KEEP ( DENSE_RANK FIRST ORDER BY date2 Desc) * -1,
min(to_char(date3,'dd-mm-yyyy'))
[code]....
Ways for improving the Table performance which holds million of records for oracle. Currently we have partitioning and indexing but it doesn't seem to work.
View 2 Replies View RelatedSELECT department_id
FROM (SELECT department_id
FROM employees
UNION
SELECT department_id
FROM employees_old )
WHERE department_id=100;
[code]....
The index has been created on both depart_id for the two tables. The only difference between the two I observed was the 1 recursive call for the 1st sql.and also, one additional view in the plan.There is a little difference in bytes sent over the network.
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
6 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
[code]....
Is there any performance impact you find in those above two sqls if you compare?
I am going through this scenario:
* 35 | ID TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROW | S_ORG_EXT | 3064K| 2472M| | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 36 | INDEX FULL SCAN | S_ORG_EXT_U1 | 14 | | | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
35 - filter("T2"."ACCNT_FLG"<>'N' AND ("T2"."INT_ORG_FLG"<>'Y' OR "T2"."PRTNR_FLG"<>'N'))
This unselective index scan on step 36 of the explain is returning 14 rows but optimizer is selecting 3064 K rows from the table .
I tried creating combined index on all 3 columns mentioned in the predicates for 35th step , but that is not utilized .
how to index this whole expression ::--
(ACCNT_FLG<>'N' AND (INT_ORG_FLG<>'Y' OR PRTNR_FLG<>'N'))
Something like CREATE INDEX XYZ on table((ACCNT_FLG<>'N' AND (INT_ORG_FLG<>'Y' OR PRTNR_FLG<>'N')) compute statistics ;
The scale of the tests that generate the following scenario is not huge right now, only 50 users simulated (or you can think of them as independently running threads if you like). But here is the crunch, the queries generated (from generic transaction layer) are all running against a table that has 600 columns! We can't really control this right now, but this is causing masses amounts of IO (5GB per request) making requests queue for disk availability (which are setup RAID 0/1); its even noticable for as few as 3 threads.
I have rendered the SQL on one occasion to execute in 13 seconds for a single user but this appears short lived as when stats were freshly gathered it went up to the normal 90-120 seconds. I've added the original query to the file, however the findings here along with our DBA (who I trust implicitly) suggest that no amount of editing the query will improve the response times, increasing the PGA/SGA (currently 4/6GB respectively) will only delay the queuing for a bit and compression can work either. In short it looks as though we've hit hardware restrictions already for this particular scenario.
As I can't really explain how my rendered query no longer takes 13 seconds, it's niggling me that we might be missing a trick.So I was hoping for some guidance on possible ways of optimising these type of queries against such wide tables, in other words possibilities that we haven't considered...
Attached is the query and plan.
I have a view on base tables holding historical data for previous 60 months(one table per month) with union all operators.create index on those base tables will improve performance or creating a primary key with disabled novalidate will improve for retrieving data?
The view has around 8 million data and used as a fact table with 4 dimension tables.A DTS package from MSSql side refreshes OLAP cube by retrieving data from these tables in oracle.