SQL & PL/SQL :: ORA-30556 - Functional Index Is Defined On Column To Be Modified
Feb 2, 2012
I'm altering a column length to increase the size and getting "ORA-30556: functional index is defined on the column to be modified".
On searching more about this error, it seems like the function index must be dropped before altering the column.The table I'm dealing with is huge.
Question 1:In case of dropping and recreating the index, should the following steps be done:
- Drop Index
- Alter the column to increase the size
- Recreate the index with NOLOGGING and NOPARALLEL clause
- ALTER INDEX to turn on LOGGING
- Gather Statistics on that index
Question 2:Is there anything else that should be done when the index is dropped and re-created?
Question 3:What are the side-effects of carrying out the above steps in a huge table with around 15 million rows?
Question 4:Would it work if I disable the index, alter the column and reenable the index?Do I have to rebuild the index and gather Stats upon reenabling it?
WHERE (IPC_DISP_ID IS NOT NULL AND DISP_EXIST > 0) AND (IPC_UPU_BCD IS NOT NULL AND RECPT_EXIST > 0) AND ( (IPC_ITM_ID IS NOT NULL AND ITM_EXIST > 0) OR IPC_ITM_ID IS NULL )
I have a functional index.. which doesn't allow duplicate based on condition.I want to catch the exception and print the customized message but it always override my message.
create or replace function i_func (tt_id in number, d_date date, stat in varchar2) return varchar2 [code].....
I have a table with an index on the file_id column, defined in the same way in a test site and a production site.The only difference of these two tables is the amoun of data contained on it.the test site table contains about a million of records.the production table contains about 17 millions of records.
When I do a select on the table in test site, it returns the information in a sorted way.however, when I do the same select on the production site, the information is received in an unsorted way.
I assume that the index in production site might need to be rebuilt, because usually a big amount of data is extracted and deleted from the table and new information is inserted constantly.this situation does not occur in test site, information change is not very usual.
if rebuilt of index would actually to get the results on a sorted way, or the only way to get it is to add an "order by" statement in the query statement.
I need to modify the column type that already has data in it, i need it change varchar to number then The datas entered have $ and , (e.g $3,200). I need the $ and , removed with column type set to numbers.
When i currently do this i get the following error:
The TABLE operation was not successful for the following reason:
ORA-01439: column to be modified must be empty to change datatype
I've tried unloading the data and loading the data using the spreadsheet, cut and past and csv file but both give me more errors, so i just want that one column modified.
I dont know where was the mistake, getting column ambiguously defined error
CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE FLXUSER.testgg AS BEGIN /*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ BEGIN
I am getting ORA-00918: column ambiguously defined error when running the below SQL query. I am gettig this error at the last line of code where v1.objectid=v2.parent_object_id
I have not written this query so i find difficult to debug it. Also i am not that well verse with SQL
i want to produce a function who return XmlType element if she checks that a parameter (that i passed to here is contained in a row in a defined table)
for example
create table sec_form( form_code VARCHAR2(8) , sec_code VARCHAR2(5) ) ; insert into sec_form values ('CSA','section1'); insert into sec_form values ('CSA','section2'); insert into sec_form values ('CSA','section3');
then i got my function
create or replace function checkIfSectionEnabled (elem XmlType,name_section varchar2) return XmlType is v XmlType; CURSOR myCursor IS select * from sec_form where form_code = 'CSA'; begin open myCursor; loop
[code]....
now i'm gonna call the function (elem XmlType,name_section varchar2) and pass here "section1" for example ; and she must return me my xmltype element if she find "section1" finds section1 present;
when i try t compile i got:
Error(18,13): PL/SQL: Statement ignored Error(18,26): PLS-00225: subprogram or cursor 'MYCURSOR' reference is out of scope
is there some performance/access difference between a bitmap index on a number column and char(1) column? Both columns are not null with a default value.My application has a querie like this:
If I create a bitmap index on column "column_char", the access plan is not changed. But changing the column datatype to number(1) and obviously the values, the index is accessed and the cost decreases.This table has 4.000.000 rows. Oracle 11.2.0.2SO
the literature equates dimension hierarchies with fuctional dependencies between the levels. I like to tst the strength of this assumption with the implementation of 'CREATE DIMENSION' which allows you to create roll-up hierarchies.
My question to put it simply is this: Given:
CREATE DIMENSION location_dim LEVEL location IS (location.loc_id) LEVEL city IS (location.city) LEVEL state IS (location.state) HIERARCHY geog_rollup ( location CHILD OF city CHILD OF state CHILD )
Can I insert the following rows into the dimension: loc_id, city, state 1, Epping, NSW 2, Epping, VIC
Please note that the two Eppings are different cities.
Given the roll-up hierarchy City -> State, will it require that for every city there can be only one state in which case the FD between City and State cannot hold. Or, is it that the roll-up hierarchy defined here has nothing to do with FD.
The second part of the question is if the answer to the above question is that the roll-up is not the same as FD, then is the ATTRIBUTE clause meant to define the n:1 (functional dependency) instead?
I have a table with column A which contains very few null values. I need to select these rows. I am considering two options:
a) create function based index on NVL(A, 0) and use this in where clause NVL(A, 0)=0 (column doesn't have values 0) b) create function based index on NVL2(A, 0, NULL) and and use this in where clause NVL2(A, 0, NULL) = 0
First idea was option A. But I realized in option B the index will be much smaller, because most of values of column A isn't NULL so NVL2 will return NULL and index will not have as much leafs as in NVL. It is good idea to use NVL2? Is there any against to use option B instead of A?
SQL > CREATE UNIQUE INDEX index_debug1 ON debug_table (SLNO);
Index created.
SQL > ALTER INDEX index_debug1 ADD COLUMN MESSAGE; ALTER INDEX index_debug1 ADD COLUMN MESSAGE * ERROR at line 1: ORA-02243: invalid ALTER INDEX or ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW option
If my query is under execution and I want to make an index on a column which is very much needed by my query. Will a simple index solve the purpose or is there any extra keyword required ?
In my production environment, I have a mostly working Oracle 12c Cloud Control environment, managing several database instances. On all of the databases, I am unable to use the Compare period ADDM feature ( Instance > Performance > AWR > Compare Period ADDM).
When I select that menu option, I see the message "To be able to use this feature some PL/SQL packages need to be loaded into the target database's monitoring schema, DBSNMP." I have been searching for further information in the specific packages that need to be loaded per the message, but neither Orafaq, [URL] nor Google seem to have those details.
I currently have a 5 column index on a table with over 2 billion records (paritioned on created_date (weekly) that is not very effective.I am contemplating replacing this 5 key index and creating a new single column index made up by hashing of all the 5 five columns.
Is this a wise stratgey? How can I implement this so it is most effective and I dont shoot myself in the foot?
I have a table with, for example, three columns: A, B,C.
I execute on this table only one select: CODESELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE A = :1 AND B=:2
Column A has a lot of distinct values (numbers), but B can have only two values: 'Y' or 'N' (cardinality about 50%/50%). It is worth to create index on two columns: A, B? Does query using index on A column will be much slower than using index on A, B?
I have in my database (OLTP-System) a table with about 6000000 records and a zise of about 2GB.
the way to create multi_column indexes on the table?
What are the rule to define the best-position of a column in an index?
index_1(col_1,Col_2,col_3) and not [ (col_1,Col_3,col_2) or (col_2,Col_3,col_1) or (col_2,Col_1,col_3) or (col_3,Col_2,col_1) or (col_3,Col_1,col_2) ] ?
I am creating an index in program and then drop the index at the end of the program. Some times due to some problem if the index could not be dropped and the user again runs the program then we get the error
ORA-01408 Index already exist on the column.
how I can get away with this error or how I can check whether the index with the same columns exits prior to creating an index.
explain slow performance of multicolumn indexes on oracle 11g R2 observed in the following scenario? A multi-column index (b-tree index) not partitioned, not unique, not reversed with 3 columns.
A series of queries are run using all 3 columns. The performance hit comes when the first order column values changes. So, maybe after 10 select queries the value changes. The 2nd and 3rd order columns are changing throughout the series of select calls, but no performance bottleneck it hit then.
SELECT CURRENTSTEP FROM (SELECT ( WFENTRY.NAME || ',' || CURRENTSTEP.STEP_ID ) AS CURRENTSTEP, (CASE WHEN WFENTRY.NAME IN
[Code]...
in this query I am concatenating tow columns , I use this query as a sub query in my other queries and filter the results with and CURRENTSTEP = ?
here is how I use it
select sys_audit_id from ( SELECT * FROM (SELECT F.FINDING_NUMBER,
[Code]....
I saw adding this as a subquery with the filter and CURRENTSTEP = ? is slowing my query very much , as this is a derived column i cannot add index then how to improve performance for this subquery ?
I have a table A with a column B timestamp(6). The tables contains around 300000 rows..I have created index 'idx' on the column B.When i compare column 'B' with systimestamp, it does not use the index, whereas if i compare 'B' with sysdate it uses the index.
Eg : select count(*) from a where b<=sysdate;
The above used the index 'idx' and executed in 1 second
select count(*) from a where b<=systimestamp;
The above does not use the index and executed in 19 seconds.
I have a partitioned table like below. I want to create a B-Tree index on SALES_RGN column which is neither the part of Primary key or the Partitioned key. Should I create this index as local or Global ?
CREATE TABLE sales_dtl ( txn_id number (9), salesman_id number(5), salesman_name varchar2(30), sales_rgn varchar2(10), -----------------------------> This column needs to be indexed sales_amount number(10), sales_date date, constraint pk_sales_dtl primary key (txn_id) [code]....
We have a table called address and having the address fields and city ,state etc. The table will store huge amount of data .We need to query on the table. I would like to know how can we fasten the query and improve the performance of the query by creating index on these columns...Query is given below . note that the nullable columns can have data
