I would like to reorganize a table inorder of primary key but I'm not sure if I'm expecting the right thing from dbms_redefinition package.
I am working on oracle 9i 9.2.0.8
I have the following table :
SELECT * from SCOTT.TESTTABLE
ID REF
---------- ----------
1 FF
2 BB
3 CC
4 DD
8 EE
6 ZZ
7 YY
5 GG
when I use the CODEexec dbms_redefinition.start_redef_table('SCOTT', 'TESTTABLE', 'TESTTABLE2', 'id id, ref ref', dbms_redefinition.cons_use_pk);
Would the newly created scott.testtable be created in order of primary key (ID) thus a select * from scott.testtable will give me an ordered result?
When I do the test, the table before and after the redefinition is exactly the same so why use the CONS_USE_PK if it doesn't order the table by primary key?
1.Is it necessary to reorganize a table and index after the deletion of records from table ? Because i see some change in table size after table and index reorganization.
2.Will re org table and index improve the database performance ?
I have to reorganize one table that related to several other tables. The reorg is too slow when it runs on this table. I would like to create one image of the table and synch it with the original one in real time. So when I run the reorg, I will use the image table that does not constrained by indexes and other objects. Once the reorg is done, I would like to rename the table. how could I do the replication in real time?
Name Null Type --------------------------- -------- ------------- RPTNO NOT NULL NUMBER RPTDATE NOT NULL DATE RPTD_BY NOT NULL VARCHAR2(25) PRODUCT_ID NOT NULL NUMBER
describe rptbody
Name Null Type ------------- -------- ------------- RPTNO NOT NULL NUMBER LINENO NOT NULL NUMBER COMMENTS VARCHAR2(240) UPD_DATE DATE
The fact is that we store some header in RPTHEAD and store real data in RPTBODY, the question is that if I use below SQL to query all data for a 'PRODUCT_ID'.
SELECT t0.LINENO, t0.COMMENTS, t0.RPTNO, t0.UPD_DATE FROM RPTBODY t0 , RPTHEAD rpthead WHERE ( t0.RPTNO = rpthead.RPTNO AND t0.UPD_DATE>=to_date('1970/01/01 00:00:00','YYYY/MM/DD hh24:mi:ss') AND rpthead.PRODUCT_ID IN ('4647') )
I do not want to have 'ORDER by' clause since data set is too large, the sorting takes long time, is there any way to get the result rows in the order sorted by RPTNO? We have the index for RPTNO on RPTBODY.
I have been given the task to modify our company's Apex from 4.1 to 4.2. The upgrade has been completed; in addition, the current UI, blue and tan has been updated to BlueJay. I have noticed the structure of the page gets shuffled as well as contents within modules. What would be the best way to "re-organize" my pages.
- Would it be easy for me modify the page, if so how do I do this. The settings look identical, so what would I change ? - Do I recreate the entire page from scratch ?
primary key constraint on transaction_dtl_bk is affecting the insertion of next correct rows.
CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE NP_DB.san_po_nt_wnpg_1 ( dt DATE ) IS v_sql_error VARCHAR2 (100); -- added by sanjiv v_sqlcode VARCHAR2 (100); ---- added by sanjiv added by sanjiv
if a table contains two columns and both are part of the primary key of that table (Kind of obvoius).
should i opt for a index organized tbale in this case ?Or should i opt for another running sequential colum which would serve as a primary key of this table and define the actual two columns of the system as unique keys.
there is a drawback if a most of the tables of a database contain composite primary keys?
I know the only way to guarantee a specific sort order result when querying table is by using the order by clause. However, I have an issue where I do not have access to the code for the web user interface of a very lightly used interface (has two users). In that user interface is a drop down box that is populated by a table - one table. The drop down box is populated by the query "select [column name] from [table name]". Right now there are 400+ rows in that table total, so it's small but not having the items ordered is a pain.
I would like to alter something on the db side so the result of "select [column name] from [table name]" is an ordering by the column descending. I don't want the sort order to be the same for all queries (including joins and all) just want to control the order for that one query. It is Oracle9i.
CREATE TABLE test_A(member_id NUMBER(2) PRIMARY KEY, MEMBER_name VARCHAR2(20), MEMBER_parent NUMBER(2) DEFAULT NULL); INSERT ALL INTO test_A VALUES (1, 'mem1', NULL) INTO test_A VALUES (2, 'mem2', NULL) INTO test_A VALUES (3, 'mem3', NULL) INTO test_A VALUES (4, 'mem4', 1) INTO test_A VALUES (5, 'mem5', 1)
[code]....
As the actual data is huge, I need to know the best (least expensive) way to select each parent and then all its direct child ordered by member_id the output should look like:
I need to copy the changed and deleted data in an other table. I have searched this site ,asktom and other sites also. I found the following solution from asktom website. But it gives me the changed columns data only and i need the primary key with changed data and deleted rows also.
DROP TABLE emp; CREATE TABLE emp AS (SELECT * FROM scott.emp); CREATE TABLE audit_table
Is is required to check the number of rows updated in a table when the primary key of the table is used in the filter criteria of the update statement? As I know,by default it will update only one record. But if it happens to be an important transaction table and only one record is required to be updated, then is it the best practice to use the 'SQL%ROWCOUNT' check in the query, even if the update query is using primary key in filter clause.
Example:Consider Trans table with trans_id as primary key. Then: Update Trans set trans_status='pass' where trans_id=123;
I know this will update only one record. But what is the best practice? Shall I use 'SQL%ROWCOUNT' after this update to double check whether the record is updated or not?
Is it possible to apply primary key on table having some duplicate record?I can do this by deleting duplicate record, But I don't want to delete exisitng data.
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 an employee table which has a primary key and a self referencing foreign key, as shown here
create table employee ( id not null, name not null, department not null, supervisor_id not null ,constraint constraint_1 primary key (id) ,constraint constraint_2 foreign key (supervisor_id) references employee (id));
Now if i make the primary key composite, as shown below -
create table employee ( id not null, name not null, department not null, supervisor_id not null ,constraint constraint_1 primary key (id, name) ,constraint constraint_2 foreign key (supervisor_id) references employee (id));
Oracle is throwing the following error -
ORA-02270: no matching unique or primary key for this column-list
How can this error be fixed without changing the composite primary key?
I've a staging table STG_TABLEA which has a primary key discount_seq_no.
I am creating a pl/sql procedure to populate a primary key (discount_seq_no) with a database sequence. The intent is to keep this populated with next value incrementing by 1.
I am using Oracle 11.2.0.2 version.
I've put together the below code, not sure on next steps...
BEGIN UPDATE STG_TABLEA SET A.DISCOUNT_SEQ_NO = "INSERT A SEQUENCE HERE AND KEEP INCREMENTING the seq value by 1 COMMIT; EXCEPTION WHEN OTHERS THEN RAISE; END;
I have a partioned table that has close to 2 billion rows and a PK of all columns. Becuase of time constrains my APP team wants the PK disabled while they pump into hundreds of thousands of rows with a batch process.
Now I am finding when I enable the PK its eating up close to close to 200GB of temp space.
Is there something I can do to reduce the amount of temp space being used?
I have data that i am sorting, the data is mostly numeric (format of XXX-1234). is there any way to have my query sort xxx-1000 AFTER xxx-999? right now i am thinking i will have to create a separate sort order column on my table.
I have to find the next EMP whose MAX_SQUENCE needs to be updated with a sequence. In this case the next would be '010' I fetched the EMP who falls after the max value of the column max_sequence in order of EMPCODE.
select emp_next from ( SELECT emp,max_sequence, LEAD(emp, 1, 0) OVER (ORDER BY emp) AS emp_next from test_emp_wip where wip > 0 ) where max_sequence=(select max(max_sequence) from test_emp_wip where wip > 0) EMP_NEXT 010 After sometime, the record would look like :-
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.
