Index size 3 times more then table

table cnmas
record 134 only
but there is lot of dml operation on this table
SQL> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM CNMAS;
COUNT(*)
134
1* SELECT SUM(BYTES)/1024/1024 FROM USER_SEGMENTS WHERE SEGMENT_NAME='CNMAS'
SQL> /
SUM(BYTES)/1024/1024
4
1* SELECT SUM(BYTES)/1024/1024 FROM USER_SEGMENTS WHERE SEGMENT_NAME='PK_CNMAS_CN_DOC_NO'
SQL> /
SUM(BYTES)/1024/1024
12
table have 134 record
table size 4 m.b
index size 12 m.b
whats the REASON?????????????
thanks
kuljeet pal singh

INDEX DETAILS
SELECT INI_TRANS,MAX_TRANS,INITIAL_EXTENT,NEXT_EXTENT,MIN_EXTENTS,MAX_EXTENTS,PCT_INCREASE FROM USER_INDEXES WHERE INDEX_NAME='PK_CNMAS_CN_DOC_NO';
INI_TRANS MAX_TRANS INITIAL_EXTENT NEXT_EXTENT MIN_EXTENTS MAX_EXTENTS PCT_INCREASE
2 255 10485760 4194304 1 2147483645 0
TABLE DETAILS
SQL> SELECT PCT_FREE,PCT_USED,INI_TRANS,MAX_TRANS,INITIAL_EXTENT,NEXT_EXTENT,MIN_EXTENTS,MAX_EXTENTS,PCT_INCREASE FROM USER_TABLES WHERE TABLE_NAME='CNMAS';
PCT_FREE PCT_USED INI_TRANS MAX_TRANS INITIAL_EXTENT NEXT_EXTENT MIN_EXTENTS MAX_EXTENTS PCT_INCREASE
10 40 1 255 532480 4194304 1 2147483645 0

Similar Messages

Select query taking long time (more then 6 min)

Dear experts,
DATA:IT_CHEQ2 TYPE TABLE OF TY_BSAS,
     WA_CHEQ2 LIKE LINE OF IT_CHEQ2.
DATA : IT_CHEQ3 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF TY_BSAS WITH HEADER LINE.
TYPES:BEGIN OF TY_BSAS,
       BUKRS TYPE BSAS-BUKRS,
       HKONT TYPE BSAS-HKONT,
       AUGDT TYPE BSAS-AUGDT,
       AUGBL TYPE BSAK-AUGBL,
       ZUONR TYPE BSAK-ZUONR,
       GJAHR TYPE BSAK-GJAHR,
       BELNR TYPE BSAK-BELNR,
       BUZEI TYPE BSAK-BUZEI,
       BUDAT TYPE BSAK-BUDAT,
       XBLNR TYPE BSAK-XBLNR,
       BLART TYPE BSAK-BLART,
       SHKZG TYPE BSAK-SHKZG,
       DMBTR TYPE BSAK-DMBTR,
       WMWST TYPE BSAK-WMWST,
      AUGGJ TYPE BSAK-AUGGJ, " CLEARING FYSICAL YEAR
       OT_TAX TYPE BSAK-DMBTR,
       TDS   TYPE BSAK-DMBTR,
       VAT    TYPE BSAK-DMBTR, "Vat amount
       WCT   TYPE BSAK-DMBTR,
       ADV    TYPE BSAK-DMBTR, "Advance
       CHAMT TYPE BSAK-DMBTR,
       CHNO TYPE PAYR-CHECT,
       CHDATE TYPE PAYR-ZALDT,
       DBIT_NOTE TYPE BSAK-DMBTR,
       PAY_ADJ   TYPE BSAK-DMBTR,
       PEND_SES TYPE BSAK-DMBTR, "PENDING SES
       CR_PARTY(50) TYPE C,
      END OF TY_BSAS.
SELECT BUKRS HKONT AUGDT AUGBL ZUONR GJAHR BELNR BUZEI BUDAT XBLNR BLART SHKZG
                  DMBTR WMWST
                  FROM BSAS INTO " APPENDING
           CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE IT_CHEQ3
                  FOR ALL ENTRIES IN IT_CHEQ2
                  WHERE AUGBL = IT_CHEQ2-AUGBL and
                    BUKRS = IT_CHEQ2-BUKRS   AND
*                  AUGBL = IT_CHEQ2-AUGBL
                      GJAHR = IT_CHEQ2-GJAHR
                  AND XBLNR = IT_CHEQ2-XBLNR.
line company code hkont       augdt               augbl               zuonr              gjahr        belnr                 buzei budat
1     1018     0012100030     20110831     2100009710     20110831     2011     2100009710     005     20110831
xblnr       blart        shkzg
RA03     KZ         H            37067.00         0.00     2011     0.00     0.00
2     1018     0012100030     20110831     2100009710     20110831     2011     2100009710     006     20110831
     RA03     KZ     H     393850.00     0.00     2011     0.00     0.00
3     1018     0012100030     20110831     2100009710     20110831     2011     2100009710     004     20110831     RA03     KZ     S     723589.13     0.00     2011     0.00     0.00
4     1018     0012100030     20110831     2100009710     20110823     2011     3900001250     001     20110823     RA03     RS     H     712921.13     0.00     2011     0.00     0.00
5     1018     0023200000     20110831     2100009710     20110831     2011     2100009710     008     20110831     RA03     KZ     H     21788.00     0.00     2011     0.00     0.00
6     1018     0023200000     20110831     2100009710     20110831     2011     2100009710     007     20110831     RA03     KZ     H     1162821.00     0.00     2011     0.00     0.00
if i put same entry in se11 for bsas it takes 7 second
and in query takes more then 6 min ,kindly tell why
help me gurus
regards
victor

Tested point 2.
There is no difference.
REPORT Z_YZ_SELECT_ORDER.
types: begin of t_orderadm,
         description type CRMT_PROCESS_DESCRIPTION,
         created_at type COMT_CREATED_AT_USR,
         LOGICAL_SYSTEM type CRMT_LOGSYS,
         TEMPLATE_TYPE type CRMT_TEMPLATE_TYPE_DB,
         VERIFY_DATE type CRMT_VERIFY_DATE,
         GUID type CRMT_OBJECT_GUID,
       end of t_orderadm.
types: begin of t_orderadm_1,
         GUID type CRMT_OBJECT_GUID,
         description type CRMT_PROCESS_DESCRIPTION,
         LOGICAL_SYSTEM type CRMT_LOGSYS,
         TEMPLATE_TYPE type CRMT_TEMPLATE_TYPE_DB,
         created_at type COMT_CREATED_AT_USR,
         VERIFY_DATE type CRMT_VERIFY_DATE,
       end of t_orderadm_1.
data: lt_orders type table of t_orderadm,
      lt_orders_1 type table of t_orderadm_1.
select description created_at logical_system template_type verify_date guid
into table lt_orders
from crmd_orderadm_h.
select guid description logical_system template_type created_at verify_date
into table lt_orders_1
from crmd_orderadm_h.
write 'done'.
First select - mixed order of fields. Response time: 82.155 microseconds for 39380 records selected.
Second select - fields in the order of the table. Response time: 81.061 microseconds for the same 39380 records selected.
Then I changed the order of SELECT statements. I have put first the select with ordered fields, and second - select with mixed order of fields. The runtimes were the following:
Ordered fields - 82.649 microseconds
Mixed order of fields - 80.270 microseconds.
So I'm going to change the Wiki page in order to avoid in future advices that make no sense.

Taking more time(more then 12 hours) while syncing

I sync some music(about 340 MB) and pics (about 200 MB) to my new Ipad for the first time, and it was ok.
But when i connect my Ipad Second time to my laptop(running on Windows 8) it was syncing & taking backup for more then 12 hours but still it was not completed. Is there ny problem in My Ipad or in my Laptop or in Itunes.
Kindly help me,i bought my Ipad just 5 days before.

Hello,
Looks like you have a 1:M relationship from TableA to TableB, with a 1:1 back pointer from TableB to TableA. If triggering the 1:M relationship is causing you delays that you want to avoid there might be two quick ways I can see:
1) Don't map it. Leave the TableA->TableB 1:M unmapped, and instead just query for relationship when you do need it. This means you do not need to call tableA.addTableB(tableB), and instead only need to call tableB.setTableA(tableA), so that the TableB->TableA relation gets set. Might not be the best option, but it depends on your application's usage. It does allow you to potentially page the TableB results or add other query query performance options when you do need the data though.
2) You are currently using Lazy loading for the TableA->TableB relationship - if it is untriggered, don't bother calling tableA.addTableB(tableB), and instead only need to call tableB.setTableA(tableA). This of course requires using TopLink api to a) verify the collection is an IndirectCollection type, and b) that it is hasn't been triggered. If it has been triggered, you will still need to call tableA.addTableB(tableB), but it won't result in a query. Check out the oracle.toplink.indirection.IndirectContainer class and it's isInstantiated() method. This can cause problems though in highly concurrent environments, as other threads may have triggered the indirection before you commit your transaction, so that the A->B collection is not up to date - this might require refreshing the TableA if so.
Change tracking would probably be the best option to use here, and is described in the EclipseLink wiki:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Introduction_to_EclipseLink_Transactions_(ELUG)#Attribute_Change_Tracking_Policy
Best Regards,
Chris

HOW TO MANAGER APPROVE LEAVE REQUEST AT A TIME MORE THEN TWO

Hi Experts,
This is Kalyan.I am working on ess/mss . How to manager approve four work items at a time .
And how to add Custom Fields in UWL .Can u please help me.
Regards,
Kalyan

Hi Kalyan
Suppose if multiple persons raise workflows like Leave, Travel, Claims, Loan every workflow is different. You cannot have single workflow and single work item. The work item comes to UWL for the approver. In the UWL you can customize the screen put a radio button in the screen such that only approve and reject button. So every wprk item can be just selected with approve and reject radio button on the UWL itself. Finaly update button will update the entier page with the approvals. But this is very very very difficult.
Think logically Y the approver wants to do mass approval. Suppose the approver receives the leave work item without seeing the leave quota will he approve?. Similiarly for travel without seeing the expense amount will the approver approve the trip.
UWL is for all the module like Travel, Leave, Claims, Loan etc. Every module the approval screen itslef different. So mass approval is not possible.
If ESS is implemented only for Leave or Travel or Payroll then its possible. In that case customize the UWL with radio button and after mass approve or rejection finally need to update. But this is absolutly not advisable since every person the data are different. So mass approval is not advisable.
I think am logically correct?
Regards
vijay

Other file size grow to more then 6GB. Heed help to reduce size.

I have the iphone 3G- 16gb. Recently I noticed that the orange section(Other) has grown to 6gb. I have less then 1gb free space now. How can I reduced this "other" file size and what is this? At first I thought it was the book mark so I got rip all of it but "other remain at 6gb". Any suggestion or help appreciated.

i had the same issue. I had just updated to iTunes 8.2.1. When I synced phone it said phone was synced with another library. IMPOSSIBLE! this is the only computer (iMac) I have ever synced with (or even plugged into.) I went ahead and clicked erase current iphone content and sync. I thought "no problem" as I have everything backed up already.
I got a message saying "Not enough memory for all the music and photos." No new music or photos since last sync a few days ago. Not there is 9 GB of "other" data. How do I erase all the "other data?" Does "restore" really do this? or an app like iStat?
Any thoughts will help.
Thanks
Message was edited by: Swaim
Message was edited by: Swaim

Index size increases than table size

Hi All,
Let me know what are the possible reasons for index size greater than the table size and in some cases index size smaller than table size . ASAP
Thanks in advance
sherief

hi,
The size of a index depends how inserts and deletes occur.
With sequential indexes, when records are deleted randomly the space will not be reused as all inserts are in the leading leaf block.
When all the records in a leaf blocks have been deleted then leaf block is freed (put on index freelist) for reuse reducing the overall percentage of free space.
This means that if you are deleting aged sequence records at the same rate as you are inserting, then the number of leaf blocks will stay approx constant with a constant low percentage of free space. In this case it is most probably hardly ever worth rebuilding the index.
With records being deleted randomly then, the inefficiency of the index depends on how the index is used.
If numerous full index (or range) scans are being done then it should be re-built to reduce the leaf blocks read. This should be done before it significantly affects the performance of the system.
If index access’s are being done then it only needs to be rebuilt to stop the branch depth increasing or to recover the unused space
here is a exemple how index size can become larger than table size:
Connected to Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.2.0.3.0
Connected as admin
SQL> create table rich as select rownum c1,'Verde' c2 from all_objects;
Table created
SQL> create index rich_i on rich(c1);
Index created
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 1179648 144 9
INDEX 1179648 144 9
SQL> delete from rich where mod(c1,2)=0;
29475 rows deleted
SQL> commit;
Commit complete
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 1179648 144 9
INDEX 1179648 144 9
SQL> insert into rich select rownum+100000, 'qq' from all_objects;
58952 rows inserted
SQL> commit;
Commit complete
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 1703936 208 13
INDEX 2097152 256 16
SQL> insert into rich select rownum+200000, 'aa' from all_objects;
58952 rows inserted
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 2752512 336 21
INDEX 3014656 368 23
SQL> delete from rich where mod(c1,2)=0;
58952 rows deleted
SQL> commit;
Commit complete
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 2752512 336 21
INDEX 3014656 368 23
SQL> insert into rich select rownum+300000, 'hh' from all_objects;
58952 rows inserted
SQL> commit;
Commit complete
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 3014656 368 23
INDEX 4063232 496 31
SQL> alter index rich_i rebuild;
Index altered
SQL> select segment_type,bytes,blocks,extents from user_segments where segment_name like 'RICH%';
SEGMENT_TYPE BYTES BLOCKS EXTENTS
TABLE 3014656 368 23
INDEX 2752512 336 21
SQL>

Index size greated then Table Size

Hi all,
We are running BI7.0 in our environment.
One of the tables' index size is much greated than the table itself. The Details are listed below:
Table Name: RSBERRORLOG
Total Table Size: 141,795,392 KB
Total Index Size: 299,300,576 KB
Index:
F5: Index Size / Allocated Size: 50%
Is there any reason that the index should grow more than Table? If so, would Reorganizing index help and if this can be controlled?
Please letme know on this as I am not very clear on DB much.
Thanks and Regards,
Raghavan

Hi Hari
Its basically degenerated index. You can follow the below steps
1. Delete some entries from RSBERRORLOG.
BI database growing at 1 Gb per day while no data update on ECC
2. Re-organize this table from BRSPACE . Now the size of the table would be very less. I do not remember if this table has a LONG RAW field ( in that case export /import) of this table would be required. ---Basis job
3. Delete and recreate Index on this table
You will gain lot of space.
I assumed you are on Oracle.
More information on reoganization is LINK: [Reorg|TABLE SPACE REORGANIZATION !! QUICK EXPERT INPUTS;
Anindya
Regards
Anindya

Using SQL developer, how to show more then 1 table at at time ?

Hi, everybody
I am able to open more then 1 procedures/functions for editing.
However i am not able to open more then 1 table for seeing the data and columns.
1) how do i open more then 1 table tab in sql developer or i am not allow to do so ?
2) is it possible to see what column is the foreign key of a table in sql developer ?
thanks once again :)

use freeze view button
and drop table below from tabs
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/sql_developer/files/viewlets.html
watch this viewlet
Useful Features of SQL Developer (July '07)
it can show u how u can see more than one table at a time

Why Index size is bigger than table size?

Dear All,
I found in my database my tables sizes is coming around 30TB (All Tables in Database). and my index size for the same is 60TB. This is data ware housing environment.
How the index size and table size are differing?
Why they are differing? why index size is bigger than table size?
How to manage the size?
Please give me clear explanation and required information on the above.
Regards
Suresh

There are many reasons why the total space allocated indexes could be larger than the total space allocated to tables. Sometimes it's a mark of good design, sometimes it indicates a problem. In your position your first move is to spend as little time as possible in deciding whether your high-level summary is indicative of a problem, so you need to look at a little more detail.
As someone else pointed out - are you looking at the sizes because you are running out of space, or because you have a perceived performance problem. If not, then your question is one of curiosity.
If it's about performance then you should be looking for code (either through statspack/AWR or sql_trace) that is performing badly and use the analysis of that code to help you identify suspect indexes.
If it's about space, then you need to do some simple investigations aimed at finding a few indexes that can be "shrunk" or dropped. Pointers for this are:
select
        table_owner, table_name, count(*)
from
        dba_indexes
group by
        table_owner, table_name
having
        count(*) > 2   -- adjust to keep the output short
order by
        count(*) desc;This tells you which tables have the most indexes - check the sizes of the tables and indexes and then check the index definitions for the larger tables with lots of indexes.
Second quick check - join dba_tables to dba_indexes by table_name, and report the table blocks and index leaf blocks in desending order of leaf block count. Look for indexes which are very big, and also bigger than their underlying tables. There are special cases (and bugs) that can cause indexes to be much bigger than they need to be ... this report may identify a couple of anomalies that could benefit from an emergency fix followed (possibly) by a strategic fix.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis

Index size keep growing while table size unchanged

Hi Guys,
I've got some simple and standard b-tree indexes that keep on acquiring new extents (e.g. 4MB per week) while the base table size kept unchanged for years.
The base tables are some working tables with DML operation and nearly same number of records daily.
I've analysed the schema in the test environment.
Those indexes do not fulfil the criteria for rebuild as follows,
- deleted entries represent 20% or more of the current entries
- the index depth is more then 4 levels
May I know what cause the index size keep growing and will the size of the index reduced after rebuild?
Grateful if someone can give me some advice.
Thanks a lot.
Best regards,
Timmy

Please read the documentation. COALESCE is available in 9.2.
Here is a demo for coalesce in 10G.
YAS@10G>truncate table t;
Table truncated.
YAS@10G>select segment_name,bytes from user_segments where segment_name in ('T','TIND');
SEGMENT_NAME              BYTES
T                         65536
TIND                      65536
YAS@10G>insert into t select level from dual connect by level<=10000;
10000 rows created.
YAS@10G>commit;
Commit complete.
YAS@10G>
YAS@10G>select segment_name,bytes from user_segments where segment_name in ('T','TIND');
SEGMENT_NAME              BYTES
T                        196608
TIND                     196608We have 10,000 rows now. Let's delete half of them and insert another 5,000 rows with higher keys.
YAS@10G>delete from t where mod(id,2)=0;
5000 rows deleted.
YAS@10G>commit;
Commit complete.
YAS@10G>insert into t select level+10000 from dual connect by level<=5000;
5000 rows created.
YAS@10G>commit;
Commit complete.
YAS@10G>select segment_name,bytes from user_segments where segment_name in ('T','TIND');
SEGMENT_NAME              BYTES
T                        196608
TIND                     327680Table size is the same but the index size got bigger.
YAS@10G>exec show_space('TIND',user,'INDEX');
Unformatted Blocks .....................               0
FS1 Blocks (0-25) .....................               0
FS2 Blocks (25-50) .....................               6
FS3 Blocks (50-75) .....................               0
FS4 Blocks (75-100).....................               0
Full Blocks        .....................              29
Total Blocks............................              40
Total Bytes.............................         327,680
Total MBytes............................               0
Unused Blocks...........................               0
Unused Bytes............................               0
Last Used Ext FileId....................               4
Last Used Ext BlockId...................          37,001
Last Used Block.........................               8
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.We have 29 full blocks. Let's coalesce.
YAS@10G>alter index tind coalesce;
Index altered.
YAS@10G>select segment_name,bytes from user_segments where segment_name in ('T','TIND');
SEGMENT_NAME              BYTES
T                        196608
TIND                     327680
YAS@10G>exec show_space('TIND',user,'INDEX');
Unformatted Blocks .....................               0
FS1 Blocks (0-25) .....................               0
FS2 Blocks (25-50) .....................              13
FS3 Blocks (50-75) .....................               0
FS4 Blocks (75-100).....................               0
Full Blocks        .....................              22
Total Blocks............................              40
Total Bytes.............................         327,680
Total MBytes............................               0
Unused Blocks...........................               0
Unused Bytes............................               0
Last Used Ext FileId....................               4
Last Used Ext BlockId...................          37,001
Last Used Block.........................               8
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.The index size is still the same but now we have 22 full and 13 empty blocks.
Insert another 5000 rows with higher key values.
YAS@10G>insert into t select level+15000 from dual connect by level<=5000;
5000 rows created.
YAS@10G>commit;
Commit complete.
YAS@10G>select segment_name,bytes from user_segments where segment_name in ('T','TIND');
SEGMENT_NAME              BYTES
T                        262144
TIND                     327680Now the index did not get bigger because it could use the free blocks for the new rows.

Index size (row_nums) is bigger than the tables row

Hi everyone,
I'm encountering some strange problems with the CBO in Oracle 10.2.0.3 - it's telling me that I have more rows in the indexes than there are rows in the tables.
I've tried all combinations of dbms_stats and analyse and cannot understand how the CBO comes up with such numbers. I've even done a "delete statistics" and
Re-analysed the table and indexes but it doesn't help.
The command I used is variations of the following:
exec
DBMS_STATS.GATHER_TABLE_STATS(ownname=>'MBS',tabname=>'READINGTOU', -
estimate_percent=>dbms_stats.auto_sample_size,method_opt=>'FOR COLUMNS PROCESSSTATUS',degree=>2);
EVEN TRIED
exec sys.dbms_utility.analyze_schema('MBS','ESTIMATE', estimate_percent => 15);
I've even used estimate_percent of 50 and still getting lower numbers for the table.
Initially I was afraid that since the index is larger than the table, the index would never be used. So the question is, does it really matter that the indexes' num_rows is bigger than the tables' num_rows? What is the consequence of this? And how do I get the optimizer to correct the differences in the stats. The table is 30G in size and growing, so a COMPUTE is out of the question.
but have the same problem in dev..and i did the COMPUTE in dev...get the same thing... I have more rows in the indexes than there are rows in the tables
Edited by: user630084 on Mar 11, 2009 10:45 AM

Is your issue that you are having problems with the execution plans of queries referencing these objects? Or is your problem that you are observing more num_rows in the index than in the table when you query the data dictionary?
If it's the latter then there's really no concern (unless the estimates are insanely inconsistent). The statistics are estimates and as such, will not be 100% accurate, though they should do a reasonable job of representing the data in your system (when they don't, then you have an issue, but we've seen nothing to indicate that as of yet).

How can I restrict more then one user to access the table?

Hi !
I have a problem and two solutions and I am a bit confused as to
which one is the best one and/or can there be any better way of
handling the problem ?
Problem : I have to update a key field of a table when I update
it in the form 5.0 screen. I am basically doing a maintenance of
a table and if a certain field is updated then the change has to
be reflected in two more tables. But the issue is that the field
is a part of the key in those two tables. So all I can think of
is that I need to insert new set or rows for that new value of
the field and delete the old set of records for old values of
the field.
There are two ways of doing it;
1.One option can be to explicitely define two cursors separately
and fetch the values in them one by one and then insert the new
records and then delete the old records in both the tables. This
I feel will be a cumbersome process both in terms of processing
time and the coding.
2.Second option I was thinking can be to create two flat tables
(without keys) and insert the values in them and update the
changed field there and then insert the rows in the respective
tables. Delete the old records in the main tables and delets the
records in these flat tables. This is a bit more faster and
easier to predict and code. This seems to be a better option for
me.
Any comments on these ?
In both the cases I was thinking of making some provision so
that more then one person can't update the table simultaneously.
Since if there are more then one persons doing the processing
then some inconsistency might creep into the whole process.
This is easier to do in the second process as if I check the
data in the flat tables and if there is some data then I can
presume that some one is doing the processing and I can ask the
other person to hold for a while. But in this case how can I
stop more then two people to simultaneously check for the empty
table and start inserting the record ?
I was just thinking of having a sepatare table having only one
field and this will be a key field and as the process begins the
process will insert a fix value say 'Y' in the key field and at
the end of the process the record will be deleted and this way
we can restrict the user to access the process more then one at
a time..? Since you can't have same value of the key in a table
more then once.
Any better way of handling it will be deeply appreciated.
How about locking the table at the begining and releasing the
lock at the end ? Will there be any issue in that? since I am
inserting and deleting the rows in the same transaction.
Comments welcome,
Shobhit
null

How about performing the update IN the database using a stored
procedure?
By using non-database fields on your form to get the
information, you can then call the procedure in the database to
perform the updates. If an error occurs in the procedure you
rollback, if necessary, and send a message or status back to the
form. If it succeeds you might wish to commit and then re-
execute the form's query -- using either the original key values
or the new key values...
null

Index size per table

Oracle 11.1.7.0
We have partitioned, non-partitioned indexes.
1. Is there a way to find index size per table. As break down by table and index name how much each index is taking and where space is being used.
2. Also, Is there a way to find free space within an allocated index?
Edited by: user628400 on Nov 26, 2009 12:13 PM

Hello,
To collect statistics about indexes you must VALIDATE it first then put the datas
into a Table.
So this is the way I use:
1. Create a Table to collect the datas:
create table my_index_stats (
index_name varchar2(30),
height number(8),
del_lf_rows number(8),
distinct_keys number(8),
rows_per_key number(10,2),
blks_gets_per_access number(10,2),
btree_space number(12,0),
used_space number(12,0),
pct_used number(12,0)
/2. Validate the Index
validate index "<schema>"."<index_name>";3. Collect the datas
insert into my_index_stats
select NAME, HEIGHT, DEL_LF_ROWS, DISTINCT_KEYS, ROWS_PER_KEY,
BLKS_GETS_PER_ACCESS, BTREE_SPACE, USED_SPACE, PCT_USED
from INDEX_STATS;
commit;Then, you query the Table MY_INDEX_STATS and the USED_SPACE gives you an idea (in Bytes) of the space used inside the index.
The BTREE_SPACE gives you the size of the Index.
So from BTREE_SPACE and USED_SPACE you can know the wastage space of your Index.
Hope it can help,
Best regards
Jean-Valentin
Edited by: Lubiez Jean-Valentin on Nov 26, 2009 10:02 PM

Table index size in DB02 smaller after upgrade

SAP ERP 6.0, DB2 9.5, AIX 5.3. After we upgraded to SPS 15 / EHP4 / Netweaver EHP1 SPS02 using the downtime minimized method (shadow instance created) the index sizes for the tables are showing reduced sizes. When looking in DB02 under History -> "tables and indexes" all the tables show a drop in index sizes. I have compared the indexes to a pre upgrade copy of the system and all the indexes are still defined and active in the upgrades system. Can somebody please explain why the size drop? Is this a reporting error or what?

Hi Eddie,
DB2 V8.2 did not allow to retrieve table/index size information from DB2 directly. Therefore the SAP DB2 database interface and the CCMS code tried to do some size estimation based on cardinality and table/index width. DB2 V9.1+ provides table function ADMIN_GET_TAB_INFO to retrieve size information directly from DB2. Since this size information is much more accurate the SAP DB2 database interface and the CCMS code have been changed to use this table function.
So the phantom-"shrink" you observed may be related to the switch from size estimation to the size retrieved from ADMIN_GET_TAB_INFO . This may have happened directly after the V9.5 upgrade ( size retrieved differently in SAP DB2 database interface ) or after the SAP release upgrade ( change in CCMS ABAP coding ).
Regards
Frank

Adobe Flash CS5 generating SWF file size more then fla file?

Hi,
I have developed a video player in adobe flash cs4 and used all vector arts but when I open this fla file in Adobe Flash CS5 and published it, the swf file size more then fla file.
Please see the details below -
Adobe Flash CS4 -
Index.fla file size: 523 KB
Index.swf file size: 55 KB
Adobe Flash CS5 (Same file when open in CS5 and published)
Index.fla file size: 183 KB
Index.swf file size: 215 KB
Please suggest.
Thanks & regards
Sunil Kumar

Not working!
Thanks
Sunil Kumar

Index size 3 times more then table

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for