Why not partition every table

Hi ,
In our project we propse to partition all the tables(Even though they are small which are in MBs) in order to use exchange partiion feature.
But Our DBAs are saying that Maintainance will be a problem if we create partitions for each and every table.We said ,single tablespace is fine for all the partitions as We thought maintaining different tablespaces is a problem.
But Still DBAs are not approving it.
I just want to know what are the disadvantages of partitioning.Why DBAs in general are against the idea of creating partitions.If we use same tablespace for all partitions is there any down side for creating partitions for every table ?
Is there are disadvantage ?
Thanks
Pramod Garre

Pramod Garre wrote:
We are planning to use range partitioning (on quarters).
There is requirement to delete one quarter data from the table and then refresh with new data as and when user update some recored from frontend.this should happen in real time.Sounds like you are having the app trigger partition management ... which doesn't strike me as a good idea.
It also sounds like you really only have justification for partitioning on a few tables. Far from the "every" table you asked about. And even at that it sounds like your concept of the usage of those partitions may be flawed.
Why not work with your DBAs instead of looking to strangers for justification to fight them. Sounds to me like they are doing exactly what they were hired to do.
We thought instead of delete and insert , if we use excahnge partitions , this will be real quick as exchange partition just update the dictionary.
On these lines,do you think will there be any disadvantages of using partitioning ?
Note : Delete and Insert is working OK (2 Mins ) as compared to exchange partition ( 20 ms ).
And Yes,Every table has PK.
Thanks
Pramod Garre

Similar Messages

Why not index every field in a database

Hello,
I hope this is not to much of a newbie question. We have a database that is being used by an application. We do not know which fields are queried on, the application allows for any/all field(s) to be searched on.
Obviously, we can know which fields a particular method is searching on, but there is no requirement for the application developers to keep us up to date on particular query parameters as they add them.
This is a 10g, soon to be 11g, database. Most of the fields are integer with less than 2 digits.
My question is, why not simply index every field, or at least every small integer field?
Thanks,
Sammer

user613816 wrote:
Hello,
I hope this is not to much of a newbie question. We have a database that is being used by an application. We do not know which fields are queried on, the application allows for any/all field(s) to be searched on.
Obviously, we can know which fields a particular method is searching on, but there is no requirement for the application developers to keep us up to date on particular query parameters as they add them.
This is a 10g, soon to be 11g, database. Most of the fields are integer with less than 2 digits.
My question is, why not simply index every field, or at least every small integer field?
Thanks,
SammerIn addition to the unnecessary overhead, there are other considerations that affect whether Oracle will use an index. Just because it is there doesn't mean it will or should be used.
Think about this:
You have a table with a particular field, and an index on that field. You want to add up all the values of that field. Do you think it would be faster for oracle to just read all of those rows in the table and add them up, all of the rows in the index and add them up, or read the index, go find the row in the table, read the index, get another random row in the table...
Now, what if Oracle can read more data at a time if it is getting all the data?
What if you don't want the data from every row in the table? Are you going to create an index for every combination of columns?
What if Oracle stores two digit integers no differently than 4 digit?
What if 99.99% of the values are 0? 100%?
How does Oracle decide the best way to get the data?
These are all questions you can look up online. I would strongly suggest starting with the Oracle Concepts manual for the soon to be version. Once you have done that, you may see you don't have to apologize about newbie questions as long as people see you are willing to put some work into letting them help you.
Some people claim there is no such thing as a stupid question. I think that is just pabulum to keep people from being scared to ask questions when they ought to. The stupid question is the one you ought to have known better before you asked. So your question wasn't a stupid question, but any others you ask now that you know about documentation and online searching may very well be.

Sql server partition parent table and reference not partition child table

Hi,
I have two tables in SQL Server 2008 R2, Parent and Child Table.
Parent has date time, and it is partitioned monthly, there is a Child table which just refer the Parent table using Foreign key relation.
is there any problem the non-partitioned child table referring to a partitioned parent table?
Thanks,
Areef

The tables will need to be offline for the operation. "Offline" here, means that you wrap the entire operation in a transaction. Ideally, this transaction would:
1) Drop the foreign key.
2) Use ALTER TABLE SWITCH to drop the old data.
3) Use ALTER PARTITION FUNCTION to drop the old empty partition.
4) Use ALTER PARTITION FUNCTION to add a new empty partition.
5) Reapply the foreign keys WITH CHECK.
All but the last operation are metadata-only operation (provided that you do them right). To perform the last operation, SQL Server must scan the child tbale and verify that all keys are present in the parent table. This can take some time for larger tables.
During the transaction, SQL Server holds Sch-M locks on the table, which means that are entirely inaccessible, even for queries running with NOLOCK.
You avoid this the scan by applying the fkey constraint WITH NOCHECK, but this can have impact on query plans, as SQL Server will not consider the constraint as trusted.
An alternative which should not be entirely dismissed is to use partitioned
views instead. With partitioned views, the foreign keys are not an issue, because each partition is a pair of tables, with its own local fkey.
As for the second question: it appears to be completely pointless to partition the parent, but not the child table. Or does the child table only have rows for a smaller set of the rows in the parent?
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, [email protected]

Why frameset? Why not use a table?

Why do we need to use the framesets?
I think that we should use the tables because the framesets
do not show you the border sizes and background colors on the
source (code window). The tables show you everything including the
background color codes so that you would know where to find it on
the source window. Although, a frameset is a big risk.
If you think that I'm wrong, then can you please explain it
to me. I respect your opinion.

"jeffeyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ectmha$shq$[email protected]..
> Why do we need to use the framesets?
>
> I think that we should use the tables because the
framesets do not show
you
> the border sizes and background colors on the source
(code window). The
tables
> show you everything including the background color codes
so that you would
know
> where to find it on the source window. Although, a
frameset is a big
risk.
>
> If you think that I'm wrong, then can you please explain
it to me. I
respect
> your opinion.
>
You are right. Tables and/or css are preferable to a frames
layout.
Though I can understand why somebody would want to use
frames, certainly if
it is their first time out in web design. I myself was drawn
to the lure of
having that immutable left hand menu frame with my right hand
side being
able to change.
But then I discovered templates and server side includes.

Why DDL during SELECT is possible. Or why SELECT does not put a table lock?

This is a question to people who really knows Oracle internals or/and RDB theory.
(The question is relocated from another thread for not hijacking on that's original question.)
Why DDL during SELECT is possible? Or why SELECT does not put TM 2 Row Shared lock on table(s)?
This not locking causes a possibility while one session is running a long select, another can truncate and even drop table(s) that are being read by the first session.
I think, humbly assume, that Oracle does not put TM 2 lock on tables, that are being simply SELECTed, by some significant technical reason. But I do not know this reason. If somebody knows please shed a light.
Also, if you know that this behavior is totally correct from perspective of RDB theory, please explain me.
I'll try to explain my point.
It is a matter of data consistency and integrity that is supported in Oracle everywhere except this place.
a) If one session is reading data from moment T and other session changes data on its way at moment T1, the first session wont read that changed data, it will read the data that was there on moment T.
This is declared as Read Consistency principle.
b) If one session is changing data, and another session tries to truncate or drop table - the second session will fail with error ORA-00054: resource busy and acquire with NOWAIT specified.
This is declared as Data Integrity principle.
c) But why not to follow the above principles in case when one session reads data and another session tries to truncate or drop table (or do other DDL operations)?
It is counter-intuitive. Why not to put TM 2 (SS) lock during SELECT execution that would prevent DDLs on this table?
What I only can assume is that this is only because some technical difficulty or limitation.
What is this limitation or other reason in favor of which Oracle sacrificed consistency in this case?

user11181920 wrote:
Aman,
There was no need to clarify how DML lock works, I know that.
Also I know that in Oracle a Select does not lock neither table rows nor table itself.
The reason I mentioned it because you brought up the word change which is far better suited for DML's than DDL's as the former has a requirement to have its Undo preserved.
Again, my question was why Select does not protect itself by locking table(s), partitions and indexes?Protect from what? There is nothing wrong with doing a select. What would happen with a select doing a lock on the table before being executed in its entirety (forget DDL and DML altogether for a moment) ? State one good reason that there should be a lock for the select. If it has to, it would be always isn't it?
The keyword here is concurrency and that's what is the best when the number of locks obtained are lesser at non-required operations. A select doesn't change anything that's why in Oracle, there is no read-level lock.I am not saying about row locks while reading. They are not needed because Undo resolves concurrency.Only in the case of DML where the change is still active and the buffers are dirty. With a DDL, its an implicit commit.
I am asking why Select does not enqueue one, only one lock per object that participates in the Select?Again, my question back to you is, what good you would get from it? What purpose it would solve?
It is not very expensive, I suppose. But it would protect from DDLs that can destroy the Select's result set. You have seen in your system and in my demo(and that's what the the question was on the other thread also) that the result remains intact and its not a behavior from now. Its the same since the time I have started learning Oracle. Can you explain that why you think that the result of select statement would be wrong for a drop table? I believe, its been stated repeatedly that if the select has no requirement to look back the table, it would get completed. Only if the select needs to access the table again, it would fail. So even if we consider your explanation, there is no wrong result shown at all. Once the session encounters that the table is dropped for the statement, the execution stops right away. So where is the destroyed result?
Yes, it is less dangerous when Select does not lock table comparing with what would happen with DMLs in such case (that is why DMLs protect themselves by TM 3), it affects only the Select and its consumer, but still ... I don't understand this Oracle's decision. What is a reasoning behind it?.As I said, to improve concurrency.
Aman....

Why do we get an upgrade every 2 years? Why not every year?

I do not understand why we only get to upgrade every TWO years?!! I don't know if there is a phone on the planet that will honestly last for TWO WHOLE YEARS, unless it is not being used.. AT ALL!! We pay $160 a month, which totals up to $1,920 a YEAR, and VERIZON wants to tell me, I will have to pay FULL price for another phone before TWO years is up?!?!?!!! For starters, we have the HTC Thunderbolt.. It worked fine for the first year, but now, it cuts itself on and off, my husbands phone randomly calls people, and he has NEVER used any kind of headset in his phone, but it has headphones at the top of the screen, so he has to talk on speakerphone, my internet doesn't work half of the time, I can't even restart my phone, because when I do, it tells me it has to be activated.. SERIOUSLY VERIZON!!! When our contract is up, we are out of here!! We have CALLED verizon, we have CHATTED with verizon, we have even WENT to verizon, and NOBODY can help us!! NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON!!!! And I will tell everyone I know about the CRAPPY customer service we have gotten as well!!!

Why not every 6 months.
My phone normally lasts 2 years. My wife's phone normally lasts 2 years and her current one is now going on 29 months. The phones for my 2 teenage daughters normally last 2 years.
All of these phones get normal usage and my wife's phone gets above normal usage as she uses the lions share(between 1400 and 2000 minutes) of our minutes in any given month.
As a family, we use anywhere from 1000-3000 texts in any given month and I am surfing quite regularly on my phone. Phones CAN last 2 years. Out of the 20 or so phones I have had on my account over the past 20+ years, only 1 did not last and that was because it ended up underneath me when falling on the ice.

Unable to Activate DTP - Error; PSA/Table is not partitioned.

Hi All,
We have a DTP as part of a process chain which runs successfully each night, except for last night.
I have tried to run it manually this morning however when I go into it, it is shown to be 'Revised' rather than Active. Therefore I am unable to to 'Execute' the DTP.
When I try to activate the DTP I get the following message
PSA table /BIC/B0001165000 is not partitioned
Message no. RS_PSA_DEP002
After some time, I eventually managed to activate and run the DTP. However it has failed giving the following messages;
- Exception CX_RS_FAILED logged
- Data structures were changed. Start transaction beforehand
I hope you can help as I need to load this data today,
Thanks very much,
Michelle
Edited by: BIBYRNE on Dec 1, 2010 12:12 PM

Hi
The DTP would be 'inactive' when there is a change in any of the associated objects i.e. Transformations, Info providers / data targets.
Check if any of the objects have been changes/modified. Has anything been transported to your production system ? Maybe DTP was not reactivated on the dev system and not included in the transport.
Cheers
Umesh

Why is the "plug in" not working every time i try to stream?

Why is the "plug in" not working every time i try to stream?

If you own "Sausage Fattner" you'll find a update in your email that solves this problem.

The beta page and Test Pilot page come up EVERY time I use Firefox. Same information so why not allow us to bypass it after the 1st or 2nd or 3rd reading?

The beta page and Test Pilot page come up EVERY time I use Firefox. Same information so why not allow us to bypass it after the 1st or 2nd or 3rd reading?

That is not normal behaviour, for possible causes see [[Firefox has just updated tab shows each time you start Firefox]].

Why APO transaction data is not stored in tables

Hi All,
Why APO transaction data is not stored in tables.
can u explain me.
Babu

Good question Babu,
There indeed are tables for master data in APO database whereas the transaction data (qty, amount, dates and document numbers) are stored in a denormalized data base called livecache. But the master data too is identified with GUID's.. a cryptic and unique number given to e.g. a location, prodcuct, t/lane, customer and documents. This is because of speed of access if e.g. an external system is to fetch an information from APO using a unique session ID, instead of making a sequential read in APO tables, it read the live cache by called the GUID's that the calling characterics of the event. If one or more ECC system or an external execution system is connected to APO and one of the system collapses and rebuild again or if a system is assigned to a new business system group etc.. then its likely that systems can be out of sync and its where the live cache syncs up the data with APO tables again. If you still want to see tables in human readable format.. there are views available e..g the tables for locations LOCID and table for products MATLOC would take only GUID as inputs but the view V_MATLOC will show you the materials and locations by the numbers you know.
Hope I was able to explain. But yes the why part is still something of a mystery to me.. becasue with transparent tables it is easier to create local reports in APO and thats what probably SAP doesnt want. SAP can answer best as to what were the initial user and commercial considerations when developing APO
Regards,
Loknath

Why not to Join Fatc to fact tables in OBIEE... What is the Logical Reason

Why not to Join Fatc to fact tables in OBIEE... What is the Logical Reason
Thanks in advance
V

Hi Venkat,
I am coming from the basics of a star schema here, so hope it helps
What is a fact?
A fact is something that has all measures which can be aggregated (Units, Dollars, # of Orders) etc with keys to different dimensions.
What is a dimension?
It is the context with which we understand/record/retrieve the measures in the fact. We understand "# of Orders" for a product/By a customer etc.
So joining a dimension and a fact helps to answer the Who/What/When kind of business questions. Ex : Who bought these products? What was the product type? When these products were sold kind of...
Now just imagine tying up fact to another fact. With this kind of model, you can never answer any business question.
I have never tried joining a fact with another fact in OBI (But do not think it will allow it though :) )
Hope I am clear.
Thank you,
Dhar

Should I partition a table or not???

I have a table with well over 8 million records and growing around 15,000 records daily. It is queried through a form (forms6i), no updates are done on the form just "select". The indexes are set up for the 2 types of querries mostly performed- by a date criteria and an id criteria. Is indexing good enough? I notice that it is getting harder to get results from date specific querries. What is the best approaches to ensure the table is optimized for querries? I am not used to working with such a large table size. Does partitioning help indexes work more efficient? Should I run statistics on the whole table?? I am not comfortable running statistics on the table when I am not around to monitor the performance on the server. The database runs 24 hours, 7 days a week- there is no real "downtime" to run stats.
Please advise, I would like to find a best practice approach.

Re: Should I partition a table or not???
Posted: Jun 19, 2007 11:59 AM in response to: user542952 Reply
(small correction in my earlier posting)
mostly performed- by a date criteria and an id criteriaPartitioning NOT always imporves performance. It can degrade performance if you had NOT partitoned based on queries those hit.
Beaware of local indexes. You might degrade performance because you may need to proble mulitple index partitions.
Do you query date and Ids by range search or exact search ?.
How much data (roughly 10% ,20% , 1% etc..) you fetch through the query

Source Table not Partitioned, But destination is, Will Streams Work?

I want to use Oracle streams to setup replication in a single source environment.
Here is what I need to do:
I have a sorce data base where tables are not partitioned and oits an OLTP system.
I have another DB which has same schema as OLTP, but some of the tables are partitioned. Also it has some additional tables.
Now my question is can I setup Streams to move incremental changes from Source DB to Destination DB.
For Partitioned tables do I need to do something special so that it works?
Another question is I want to propagate changes only once a day, is it possible using streams?
Thanks

Hi,
Yes.. Streams work and the data gets propagated when there is no partition on one side and partion on the other side. It will even work when the paritition ranges are not same.
Propagating changes only once a day -- sure, possible theoritically but not sure how we can achive this.. I think starting and stopping the capture/apply process whenever needed will give you the required result. There is no control on propagation .. only control on Capture and Apply processed.
HTH
Regards,
Badri.

Why does my final cut pro is not responding every time I open it????!!!!!!

why does my final cut pro is not responding every time I open it?

As you give no background info nobody can possibly guess.
However, have you tried trashing the preferences?
Many weird things happen as a result of corrupt preferences which can create a vast range of different symptoms, so whenever FCP X stops working properly in any way, trashing the preferences should be the first thing you do using this free app.
http://www.digitalrebellion.com/prefman/
Shut down FCP X, open PreferenceManager and in the window that appears:-
1. Ensure that only FCP X is selected.
2. Click Trash
The job is done instantly and you can re-open FCP X.
There is absolutely no danger in trashing preferences and you can do it as often as you like.
The preferences are kept separately from FCP X and if there aren't any when FCP X opens it automatically creates new ones . . . instantly.

Why does Notes close every time I open it?   I can't access my notes...

Why does Notes close every time I open it?   I can't access my notes;
there don't appear to be any.    Help!
When I check in Settings, Notes has disappeared from the list of Apps
On my iPhone, yet I didn't delete it.    I had dozens of notes, lots
of necessary information stored therein.
Thanks for any help....

I was having this issue also. I found this thread and disabling Exchange Notes did the trick. Obviously, this is the solution only if you were using Exchange to begin with.
If you want to continue to use Exchange notes or perhaps try this to see if it works in general, I found a fix on this site. All works well now.
1. Delete your exchange account from the Mail, Contacts & Calendars pane in System Preferences.
2. Go to Finder, click "Go" in the menu bar, click "Go to Folder" and type in "~/Library" (without the quotes) in the box. This will take you to your user Library folder.
3. Use the search box in the finder and type in "com.apple.notes" and click "Library" in the search bar that appears. This should now find several folders and files related to the Notes app. Rename or delete everything except the help files (with the lifesaver icons on them).
4. Restart your Mac. Put your exchange account back into System Preferences, you can go ahead and activate the Notes sync service.
5. Open Notes and it should be working now!

Why not partition every table

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for