I have table with 4 partition by range partition. I am loading the table in bulk mode to latest partition. Before I load , I dropped the index and after Load I will be creating index. So when I am dropping index, it is dropping index from all the partitions and when creating the index, I am creating the index for all partitions. When I am creating index using local, it is telling you have to create local index for all partitions at the same time. because of that I have to drop and recreate all indexes again. Again I have to gather stats for whole table .
I was thinking we can build index for one partition and index should remain as is for old partitions If this is not the case, how do I plan my load for a partitioned table using bulk mode to latest partition.
I have normal tables with hugh Data and would like to increase the performace by following means:
1) Add a new column in each table. Say this column Name is IS_LIVE. This new column have only two value 1 ( LIVE ) OR 0 ( NOT LIVE ). 2) Change the normal tables to Partitioned table. There would be only two partitioned in all the table. The partitioned key column would be IS_LIVE and both partitioend recrods would be in two different tablespace. 3) Added a POLICY function to these partitioned table to Always add a Query Predicate of '1' to all queuries.
I am interested to know that what kind of Indexes ( Global Or local ) would be suitable for these kind of Design.Is there any use of having Local index on IS_LIVE.Please note that Primary Key doesnot have this new column in it.
I have a huge table (about 60 gb) partition over range. The index on this table is global index created on 4 columns together. I have a query which is running very slowly. The explain plan is showing the use of this global index.Explain plan is not showing pstart and pend because the index is global.
2day i was dropping few unwanted index from the data base, By mistake i removed the local partitioned index , So i want to recreate that index.i create the index, will the partitioned index updates when we add partitioned to the tables.
I got just confused while looking at the below two create table statements:
CREATE TABLE Test ( TestID integer not null, Name varchar2(20) not null ) PARTITION BY LIST (TestID) ( PARTITION testPart1 VALUES (1) TABLESPACE tbspc1, PARTITION testPart2 VALUES (2) TABLESPACE tbspc2@RemoteServer);
and
CREATE TABLE Test ( TestID integer not null, Name varchar2(20) not null ) tablespace tbspc1 PARTITION BY LIST (TestID) ( PARTITION testPart1 VALUES (1) TABLESPACE tbspc1, PARTITION testPart2 VALUES (2) TABLESPACE tbspc2@RemoteServer);
I'm trying to find a way to ADD new partitions to local indexes and at the same time specify their tablespaces without having to DROP and RECREATE.
Here´s an example table based on yearly partitioning:
CREATE TABLE "TABL_ANOM" ( ANOM_TS TIMESTAMP(6) NOT NULL , ANOM_TIPO NUMBER(2, 0) NOT NULL , ANOM_NIVEL NUMBER(2, 0) NOT NULL , ANOM_ID NUMBER(10, 0) NOT NULL
[code]...
Here´s an index def for the table:
CREATE INDEX "TABL_ANOM_INDEX1" ON "TABL_ANOM" ("ANOM_NIVEL") LOCAL (PARTITION DGSCOPSX_2011 TABLESPACE DGSCOPSX_2011 ,PARTITION DGSCOPSX_2012 TABLESPACE DGSCOPSX_2012 )
OK. Now I want to add partitions for 2013 so for the table I use:
ALTER TABLE TABL_ANOM ADD PARTITION DGSCOPS_2013 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('2014-01-01 00:00:00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS')) TABLESPACE DGSCOPS_2013;
and this works fine for the table but I can't find a similar command to simply add additional partitions to the indexes. I know that I can drop and recreate the indexes with the additional partition defs but on some of my tables, I'm dealing with hundreds of millions of rows and I think it would take way too long to drop and recreate all indexes on all partitions.
Also related is the PRIMARY KEY index partitions. Is there a way to add partitions (specifying the tablespaces) without having to DROP and re-ADD the CONSTRAINT with the additional partition for 2013?
create table mypart(a number, b number, c number, p_key number) PARTITION BY RANGE (p_key) ( PARTITION p0 VALUES LESS THAN (18), PARTITION p1 VALUES LESS THAN (29), PARTITION p3 VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE) ) ENABLE ROW MOVEMENT;
create index idx_mypart on mypart(p_key,a,b)
I want to create primary key on this table that will use the local partitioned index idx_mypart
can I do that ?
alter table mypart add constraint pk_mypart primary key using index (idx_mypart)
above syntax gives error
basically the primary key should make use of the local partitioned index.
i'm new to oracle environment.how can i specify NONCLUSTERD INDEX on Primary cloumn during table creation.By default it will create clusterd index but i need non-clusterd index on it.
I'm using following stmt to create normal primary constarint during table creation,
CONSTRAINT PKFORM_PROPS PRIMARY KEY (FORM_PROPS_PK) USING INDEX TABLESPACE DB123_INDEX
how can i change the above query, so that it should create NONCLUSTERED INDEX on Primary key column.
I was about to move some tables from one table space to another but it seems it is not possible to move partitioned tables between table spaces of different block sizes.
So far the only option I have is to export and then import back the data.
know if there is any way to move a partitioned table between table spaces of different block size?
SNRCTL> stat LISTENER Connecting to (DESCRIPTION=(ADDRESS=(PROTOCOL=IPC)(KEY=LISTENER))) STATUS of the LISTENER ------------------------ Alias LISTENER Version TNSLSNR for IBM/AIX RISC System/6000: Version 11.2.0.1.0 - Production Start Date 19-JAN-2013 00:50:10 Uptime 0 days 0 hr. 29 min. 51 sec Trace Level off Security ON: Local OS Authentication [code]....
In every oracle documentation for e.g:11.2 Scan and Node TNS Listener Setup Examples [ID 1070607.1] we found the local listener status showing both local-ip and vip. Why is not showing in our case?
We all know Primary key doesnt treat NULL as a value. But the above statement is fine to be executed without problem. Is this something to be highlighted? or am i not right in understanding 'var1 varchar2(20) null '?
I want to create a trigger with the requirement of achieving Primary key functionality.
I have a "EMP" table. the table already contains a duplicate data on "EMPNO" column. i want to restrict entering duplicate data further into table for that i want to create a trigger.
where can i find different triggering events of DML(like update, delete etc...)and DDL(database and schema level).
CREATE TABLE CARGA_P_RECARGA_NEW1 ( TELE_NUM VARCHAR2(10) NOT NULL, FECHA DATE NOT NULL,
[Code].....
Then I tried to insert some rows in that table, every insert statement is like this:
INSERT INTO CARGA_P_RECARGA_NEW1 VALUES ('3134769595','20/01/2013 07:22:50','1107','CONFB_20121121_20121122175002 60000000000000000090.TXT',0,16,'8327--7991284',1);
Every insert I executed had the month 01 because I expected to query results only from partittion p_0113 but nevermind how query I execute, the result is always the same. I mean if I excute this statement:
SELECT * FROM CARGA_P_RECARGA_NEW1 P_0113;
I get the same result when I execute any other like this:
We recently had to delete data from the table. This was a simple delete statement with a where clause and without taking into consideration any partition/subpartition clauses. Post committing the delete we have a count mismatch problem with two queries in particular
select count(0) count_without_parallel FROM TRANSACTION_TABLE t;
--THIS RETRIEVES *15774811* ROWS
select /* parallel(t,default) */count(0) count_with_parallel FROM TRANSACTION_TABLE t+
--THIS RETRIEVES *15777617* ROWS WHICH IS THE ACTUAL EXPECTED COUNT.
I also ran the following just to summarize
select (select count_with_parallel from ( select /* parallel(t,default) */count(0) count_with_parallel FROM TRANSACTION_TABLE t))+ - +(select count_without_parallel from (+ select count(0) count_without_parallel FROM TRANSACTION_TABLE t)) as false_difference from dual;
The difference in *2806* rows as expected.To re-affirm my counts I ran
select /*+ parallel(t,default) */ 'count_on_t',count(*) from TRANSACTION_TABLE t group by 'count_on_t' order by 1;
--THIS RETRIEVES *15777617* ROWS
Removing the parallel hint reverts back to the lesser count. Not sure what is wrong but something prevents the query from parsing the whole table and/or partitions and subpartitions.
I'm trying to create a sequence for a primary key to simply auto-increment by the default of 1. I have a sql script written to generate mt tables, and I'm not sure how to modify the script to include the sequence. I also just want the sequence for a specific column, ie, PK, not the PK in all tables.
Here's a snippet from my script:
create table image ( image_id int NOT NULL, source_id int NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT image_id_pk PRIMARY KEY (image_id), CONSTRAINT fk_source_id FOREIGN KEY (source_id) REFERENCES source(source_id) );
Would I add the create sequence statement right after the create table, and if so, how do I apply the sequence to only 1 table and a single column?
I have partitioned the table based on field.But when I am selecting by Partition or by the field I am getting Explain plan as Table Access full.I am pasting the sql and Explain Plan here. The table has two partition by BOOKING_DT_WID. One less than 20100801 and other less than 99991231.
CODESELECT * FROM WC_BOOKING_SALESREP_F WHERE BOOKING_DT_WID >= 20100801; SELECT * FROM WC_BOOKING_SALESREP_F PARTITION(SALESREP_LESS1_99991231); Here is the Explain Plan for the same. CODESELECT STATEMENT ALL_ROWSCost: 1,501 Bytes: 293,923,641 Cardinality: 809,707 4 PX COORDINATOR [code]....
How do I know if the sql is doing partition prune.
CODEPARTITION t1p1 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('2011-11-01', 'YYYY-MM-DD')) PARTITION t1p2 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('2011-11-02', 'YYYY-MM-DD')) .... PARTITION t1p4 VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE)
Every year partitions will be added for next 12 month. The table partition will be dropped every month (I have to have data from last six month so in July I could drop partition t1p1, in August - t1p2....). How many tablespaces should I create for this table and how place partitions in them to have data for last six month and use minimum space on disk?
I was thinking about one tablespace for whole table because space of each dropped partition will be reused, what do you think about that?
I have a partitioned table that is streamed to another database. I need to archive data on that table. That is I need to add a partition and remove a partition.
If I make those changes to the source table, will it stream over to the destination table?
If not, can I ...
pause streaming make changes to source table make same changes to destination table sreenable streaming. I know making data changes to the destination table can screw up streams but not sure if that holds for ddl.