Index Vs table partition

I have table whose growth is 1 million per month and may increase in future. I currently place an index on column which is frequently uses in where clause. there is another column which contains months so it may possible that I make 12 partitions of that. I want to know what is suitable. is there any connection between index and table partition?
Message was edited by:
user459835

I think the question is more of what type of queries are answered by this table?
is it that most of the times the results returned span across several months?
is there any relation to the column you use in where clause with the data belonging to a particular month (or range there-of)?

Similar Messages

Question about Global index and Table Partitions

I have created a global index for a partitioned table now in the future the partitions will be dropped in the table. Do I need to do anything to the global index? Does it need to be rebuilt or would it be ok if partitions get dropped in the table?

>
I have created a global index for a partitioned table now in the future the partitions will be dropped in the table. Do I need to do anything to the global index? Does it need to be rebuilt or would it be ok if partitions get dropped in the table?
>
You can use the UPDATE INDEXES clause. That allows users to keep using the table and Oracle will keep the global indexes updated.
Otherwise, as already stated all global indexes will be marked UNUSABLE.
See 'Dropping Partitions' in the VLDB and Partitioning Guide
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e25523/part_admin002.htm#i1007479
>
If local indexes are defined for the table, then this statement also drops the matching partition or subpartitions from the local index. All global indexes, or all partitions of partitioned global indexes, are marked UNUSABLE unless either of the following is true:
You specify UPDATE INDEXES (Cannot be specified for index-organized tables. Use UPDATE GLOBAL INDEXES instead.)
The partition being dropped or its subpartitions are empty

What happens to Existing index after table partition and created with local index

Hi guys,
desc part id number, name varchar2(100), salary number
In an existing table PART i am adding 1 more column DATASEQ NUMBER. i am asked to partition the table part based on dataseq.now the table is created with this logic
create table part( id number, name varchar2(100), salary number, DATASEQ number) partition by list(dataseq) (partition PART_INITIAL values (1));
Suggestionn required. since the table is partitioned based on DATASEQ i am asked to add local index on dataseq. i have added local index to dataseq create index idx on part(dataseq) LOCAL; Now my question is already there is existing index is for the column ID and salary.
1) IDX for dataseq is created locally so that it will have partition on each partition on the main table. Please tell me what happens to the existing index on the column ID and salary.. will it again created in local?
Please suggest
S

Hi,
first of all, in reality "partition a table" means create a new table a migrate existing data there (although theoretically you can use dbms_redefinition to partition an existing table -- however, it's just doing the same thing behind the scenes). This means that you also get to decide what to do with the indexes -- which indexes will be local, which will be global (you can also re-evaluate some of existing indexes and decide that they're not really needed).
Second of all, the choice of partitioning key looks odd. Partitioning is a data manageability technique more than anything else, so in order to benefit from it you need to find a good partitioning key. A recently added column named "data_seq" doesn't look like a good candidate. Can you provide more details about this column and why it was chosen as a partitioning key?
I suspect that whoever suggested this partitioning scheme is making a huge mistake. A non-partitioned table is much better in all aspects (including manageability and performance) than wrongly partitioned one.
Best regards,
Nikolay

How can we use the table partitions feature and.........

Hai friends when i tried to use the bitmap indexes and table partitions feature ,
I got a message like this
'table partiotion feature not enabled'
so please tell me how can i enable those features so that i will be able to use those features..........

Partitioning and Bitmap Indexes are features of Oracle Enterprise addition. In fact, I think that Partitioning is an extra option that needs to purchased with Oracle Enterprise - it is not a default feature.
These features do not exist on Oracle Standard Edition (and likely Express Edition too).

Creating a bit map index on a partitioned table

Dear friends,
I am trying to create a bitmap index on a partitioned table but am receiving the following ORA error. Can you please let me know on how to create a local bit map index as the message suggests?
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-25122: Only LOCAL bitmap indexes are permitted on partitioned tables
Trying to use the keyword local in front leads to wrong syntax.
Thanks in advance !!
Somnath

ORA-25122 Only LOCAL bitmap indexes are permitted on partitioned tables
Cause: An attempt was made to create a global bitmap index on a partitioned table.
Action: Create a local bitmap index instead
Example of a Local Index Creation
CREATE INDEX employees_local_idx ON employees (employee_id) LOCAL;
Example is about btree and I think it will work for bitmap also.

Non-Partitioned Global Index on Range-Partitioned Table.

Hi All,
Is it possible to create Non-Partitioned Global Index on Range-Partitioned Table?
We have 4 indexes on CS_BILLING range-partitioned table, in which one is CBS_CLIENT_CODE(*local partitioned index*) and others are unknown types of index to me??
Means other 3 indexes are what type indexes ...either non-partitioned global index OR non-partitioned normal index??
Also if we create index as :(create index i_name on t_name(c_name)) By default it will create Global index. Please correct me......
Please help me in identifying other 3 indexes types by referring below ouputs!!!
select INDEX_NAME,TABLE_NAME,PARTITIONING_TYPE,LOCALITY from dba_part_indexes where TABLE_NAME='CS_BILLING';
INDEX_NAME TABLE_NAME PARTITI LOCALI
CSB_CLIENT_CODE CS_BILLING RANGE LOCAL
select index_name,index_type,table_name,table_type,PARTITIONED from dba_indexes where table_name='CS_BILLING';
INDEX_NAME INDEX_TYPE TABLE_NAME TABLE_TYPE PAR
CSB_CREATE_DATE NORMAL CS_BILLING TABLE NO
CSB_SUBMIT_ORDER NORMAL CS_BILLING TABLE NO
CSB_CLIENT_CODE NORMAL CS_BILLING TABLE YES
CSB_ORDER_NBR NORMAL CS_BILLING TABLE NO
select INDEX_OWNER,INDEX_NAME,TABLE_NAME,COLUMN_NAME from dba_ind_columns where TABLE_NAME='CS_BILLING';
INDEX_OWNER INDEX_NAME TABLE_NAME COLUMN_NAME
RPADMIN CSB_CREATE_DATE CS_BILLING CREATE_DATE
RPADMIN CSB_SUBMIT_ORDER CS_BILLING SUBMIT_TO_INVOICE
RPADMIN CSB_SUBMIT_ORDER CS_BILLING ORDER_NBR
RPADMIN CSB_CLIENT_CODE CS_BILLING CLIENT_CODE
RPADMIN CSB_ORDER_NBR CS_BILLING ORDER_NBR
select dip.index_name, dpi.locality, dip.partition_name, dip.status
from dba_part_indexes dpi, dba_ind_partitions dip
where dpi.table_name ='CS_BILLING'
and dpi.index_name = dip.index_name;
INDEX_NAME LOCALI PARTITION_NAME STATUS
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2006_4Q USABLE
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2006_3Q USABLE
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2007_1Q USABLE
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2007_2Q USABLE
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2007_3Q USABLE
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2007_4Q USABLE
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2008_1Q USABLE
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2008_2Q USABLE
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2008_3Q USABLE
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2008_4Q USABLE
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2009_1Q USABLE
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2009_2Q USABLE
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2009_3Q USABLE
CSB_CLIENT_CODE LOCAL CSB_2009_4Q USABLE
select * from dba_part_indexes
where table_name ='CS_BILLING'
and locality = 'GLOBAL';
no rows selected
-Yasser
Edited by: YasserRACDBA on Mar 5, 2009 11:45 PM

Yaseer,
Is it possible to create Non-Partitioned and Global Index on Range-Partitioned Table?
Yes
We have 4 indexes on CS_BILLING range-partitioned table, in which one is CBS_CLIENT_CODE(*local partitioned index*) and others are unknown types of index to me??
Means other 3 indexes are what type indexes ...either non-partitioned global index OR non-partitioned normal index??
You got local index and 3 non-partitioned "NORMAL" b-tree tyep indexes
Also if we create index as :(create index i_name on t_name(c_name)) By default it will create Global index. Please correct me......
Above staement will create non-partitioned index
Here is an example of creating global partitioned indexes
CREATE INDEX month_ix ON sales(sales_month)
   GLOBAL PARTITION BY RANGE(sales_month)
      (PARTITION pm1_ix VALUES LESS THAN (2)
       PARTITION pm2_ix VALUES LESS THAN (3)
       PARTITION pm3_ix VALUES LESS THAN (4)
        PARTITION pm12_ix VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE));Regards

Problem with a 2 columns Range Partitioning for a indexed organized table

have an indexed organized table with a 2 column PK. the first field (datum) is a date field the second field (installatieid) is a number(2) field.
Every minute a 7 records are inserted (installatieid 0-6).
I like to partition this table with one partition per year per installatieid.
I tried to do it with:
partition by range(datum,installatieid)
(partition P_2004_0 values less than (to_date('2004-01,'yyyy-mm'),1)
,partition P_2004_6 values less than (to_date('2004-01','yyyy-mm'),7)
partition P_2005_0 values less than (to_date('2005-01','yyyy-mm'),1)
,partition P_2005_6 values less than (to_date('2005-01','yyyy-mm'),7)
but now only the P_2004_0 and P_2005_0 are filled.
I thought about to combine a range partition on datum with a list subpartition on installatieid, but I read this is not allowed with an index organized table.
How can I solve this problem.

partition by range(datum,installatieid)
(partition P_2004_0 values less than
(to_date('2004-01,'yyyy-mm'))
,partition P_2004_6 values less than
(to_date('2004-07','yyyy-mm'))
partition P_2005_0 values less than
(to_date('2005-01','yyyy-mm'))
,partition P_2005_6 values less than
(to_date('2005-07','yyyy-mm'))
? Sorry haven't got time to test it this morning ;0)

Indexes on a partitioned table

hi experts.... which data dict view shows that an index on a partitioned table is,
a Local Index or
a Global Index or
a Global Partitioned Index?

Hi,
LOCALITY column tells whether it is LOCAL or GLOBAL.
See the link for more details.
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14237/statviews_2015.htm#REFRN20156
Regards,

Table partitioning and global indexing

hello all,
the requirement is to do table partitioning with global indexing! & also thr r almost 60 crores of rows are there! so can you tell me the way which can be done better and also please provide me the procedure with documents?
thanks in advance!

Hi,
have a look at online redefinition of a table, see Oracle Manual (10.2): http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14231/tables.htm#ADMIN01514
The steps are described in the manual.
Herald ten Dam
Superconsult.nl

Create index partition in the table partition tablespace

Hello,
I am running a custom job that
* Creates a tablespace daily
* Creates the daily table partition in the tablespace created
* Drops the tablepartition X days old
* Drops the tablespace for that partition on X+1 day.
The above job runs perfectly, but 'm having issues with managing the indexes for these partitioned tables. In the old database (10g - Single Node), all the partitions/indexes existed in one BIG tablespace and when I imported the table creation script into the new database, I modified all the table partitions & indexes to go into their respective tablespace.
Eg:
Table_name........Partition_name.....................Index_Part_name..........................Tablespace_name
============...================............====================...........=================
TABL1...................TABL1_2012_07_16............TABL1_IDX_2012_07_16............TBS_2012_07_16
TABL1...................TABL1_2012_07_15............TABL1_IDX_2012_07_15............TBS_2012_07_15
But now when the job runs, it creates the index into the default tablespace TBS_DATA.
Table_name........Partition_name.....................Index_Part_name..........................Tablespace_name
============...================.............====================...........=================
TABL1...................TABL1_2012_08_16............TABL1_IDX_2012_08_16............TBS_DATA
TABL1...................TABL1_2012_08_15............TABL1_IDX_2012_08_15............TBS_DATA
I can issue alter index rebuild to move the indexes to its default tablespace, but how can I ensure that the index gets created in its designated tablespace?
NOTE - the partition/tablespace management job that I run only creates the table partition and not the index.
The new env is a 2-Node 11gR2 RAC cluster on Linux x86_64.
Thanks in advance,
aBBy.

Excerpt from the job -
This creates the partition into the new tablespace.
v_sql_new_part := 'alter table '||tab_owner||'.'||tab_name||' add partition '||v_new_part_nm||'
values less than (to_date('''||v_new_part_dt_formatted||''',''DD-MON-YYYY'')) tablespace '||part_tbs;
execute immediate v_sql_new_part;New tablespace for new partition - because this is a 10T database and having multiple tablespaces helps with backup/recovery.
Thanks,
aBBy.

How to create index on specific partition table?

Hi Experts,
we created 4 partitions on table .
Table Name : test
partitions : Test_prt1
                   Test_prt2
                   Test_prt3
                  Test_prt4
Our requiremnt create the index on specific partition (ex : Test_prt2) only.

Creating Partitioned Tables and Indexes
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187526(v=sql.105).aspx
you can create a aligned index, the index will be spread over the filegroups
Create NonClustered Index IX_orders_aligned
On dbo.orders(order_id)
On test_monthlyDateRange_ps(orderDate);
OR
Unaligned parition, you can create index on any filegroups
Create NonClustered Index IX_orders_unpartitioned
On dbo.orders(order_id)
On [Test_prt2_FileGroup];
For more information refer the below link
http://sqlfool.com/2008/12/indexing-for-partitioned-tables/
Or
You can try Creating a filtered index (I've not tried it though)
http://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/1785/sql-server-filtered-indexes-what-they-are-how-to-use-and-performance-advantages/
--Prashanth

HOW TO CREATE LOCAL INDEX ON BIG PARTITION TABLE

Dear All,
I have one big table 450GB stored on 9 partitions and same partitions I have created for the index. Now the problem is when i am trying to create local index it took one and half day and is still going on...
is there any shortest way to create local index on this table easily.
Database version is 11.2.0.1.0
INDEX SCRIPT IS
CREATE INDEX INDEX_SPACE0_IX_LOCAL ON FINANCE (END_TIME)
INITRANS 2 MAXTRANS
255
LOCAL ( PARTITION INDEX_SPACE01
LOGGING
NOCOMPRESS
TABLESPACE INDEX_SPACE01
PCTFREE 5 INITRANS 2 MAXTRANS 255 STORAGE (INITIAL 1M MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS
2147483645 BUFFER_POOL
DEFAULT), PARTITION INDEX_SPACE02
LOGGING
NOCOMPRESS
TABLESPACE INDEX_SPACE02 PCTFREE
5 INITRANS 2 MAXTRANS 255 STORAGE (INITIAL 1M MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS
2147483645 BUFFER_POOL DEFAULT),
PARTITION INDEX_SPACE03
LOGGING
NOCOMPRESS
TABLESPACE
INDEX_SPACE03
PCTFREE 5 INITRANS 2 MAXTRANS 255 STORAGE (INITIAL 1M MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS
2147483645 BUFFER_POOL DEFAULT),
PARTITION INDEX_SPACE04
LOGGING
NOCOMPRESS
TABLESPACE
INDEX_SPACE04 PCTFREE 5 INITRANS 2 MAXTRANS 255 STORAGE (INITIAL 1M MINEXTENTS
1 MAXEXTENTS
2147483645 BUFFER_POOL DEFAULT),
PARTITION INDEX_SPACE05
LOGGING
NOCOMPRESS
TABLESPACE
INDEX_SPACE05 PCTFREE 5 INITRANS 2 MAXTRANS 255 STORAGE (INITIAL 1M MINEXTENTS
1 MAXEXTENTS 2147483645 BUFFER_POOL DEFAULT),
PARTITION INDEX_SPACE06
LOGGING
NOCOMPRESS
TABLESPACE INDEX_SPACE06 PCTFREE 5 INITRANS 2
MAXTRANS 255 STORAGE (INITIAL 1M MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS 2147483645 BUFFER_POOL
DEFAULT),
PARTITION INDEX_SPACE07
LOGGING
NOCOMPRESS
TABLESPACE INDEX_SPACE07 PCTFREE
5 INITRANS 2
MAXTRANS 255 STORAGE (INITIAL 1M MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS 2147483645 BUFFER_POOL
DEFAULT),
PARTITION INDEX_SPACE08
LOGGING
NOCOMPRESS
TABLESPACE INDEX_SPACE08 PCTFREE
5 INITRANS 2 MAXTRANS 255 STORAGE (INITIAL 1M MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS
2147483645
BUFFER_POOL DEFAULT),
PARTITION INDEX_SPACE09
LOGGING
NOCOMPRESS
TABLESPACE
INDEX_SPACE09 PCTFREE 5 INITRANS 2 MAXTRANS 255 STORAGE (INITIAL 1M MINEXTENTS
1 MAXEXTENTS 2147483645 BUFFER_POOL
DEFAULT))
NOPARALLEL;
Thanks in advance......
Thanks,
Edited by: sherkhan on Aug 24, 2011 3:36 AM
Edited by: sherkhan on Aug 24, 2011 3:49 AM

Have you verified that 'n' Index partition segments have got created so far ? (they would apepar as TEMPORARY segments only till the full index creation is completed). Have you monitored the session statistics and waits and confirmed that it is not waiting on something horrible ?
A CREATE INDEX can well be NOLOGGING instead of LOGGING. It could also use PARALLEL but I always recommend setting it back to NOPARALLEL immediately after the CREATE is completed.
You can also "quickly" build an empty index and then gradually create (i.e. build) each partition
CREATE INDEX INDEX_SPACE0_IX_LOCAL ......... UNUSABLE ;
ALTER INDEX INDEX_SPACE0_IX_LOCAL REBUILD PARTITION PARTITION INDEX_SPACE01;
ALTER INDEX INDEX_SPACE0_IX_LOCAL REBUILD PARTITION PARTITION INDEX_SPACE02;
...Hemant K Chitale

A question regarding database table partitioning and table indexes in 10g

We are considering partitioning a large table in our 10g database, in order to improve response time. I believe I understand the various partitioning options, but am wondering about the indexes built over the table. When the table is partitioned, will the indexes also be partitioned "automatically"? Or do I need to also partition the indexes as well?
Thank you in advance to any and all who respond to this question.

Hello,
When you build your partiton table you just need to create indexes locally and they will be partitioned automatically, see following example
CREATE TABLE YY_EVENT
PART_KEY       DATE                              NOT NULL,
SUBPART_VALUE NUMBER                             NULL,
EVENT_NAME     VARCHAR2(30 BYTE)                  NULL,
EVENT_VALUE    NUMBER                             NULL
TABLESPACE TEST_DATA
PARTITION BY RANGE (PART_KEY)
PARTITION Y_EVENT_200901 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE(' 2009-02-01 00:00:00', 'SYYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS', 'NLS_CALENDAR=GREGORIAN'))
    TABLESPACE TEST_DATA,
PARTITION Y_EVENT_200902 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE(' 2009-03-01 00:00:00', 'SYYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS', 'NLS_CALENDAR=GREGORIAN'))
    TABLESPACE TEST_DATA
-- This will create paritioned indexes automatically
CREATE INDEX MY_IDX ON YY_EVENT
(EVENT_NAME)
TABLESPACE TEST_DATA
LOGGING
LOCAL;Regards
Edited by: OrionNet on Feb 25, 2009 12:05 PM

Creation of secondary indexes for table "RSBATCHCTRL_PAR" failed

Hi ,
We have installed EHP1 on our BI7.0 system successfully, later we are trying to apply SPS01 for this EHP but we got the follwoing error during TBATG conversion.
2 EGT092 Conversion of table "RSBATCHCTRL_PAR" was restarted
2 EGT241 The conversion is continued at step "6"
2 EGT246 Type of conversion: "T" -> "T"
2 EGT240XBegin step "RSBATCHCTRL_PAR-STEP6":
4 EGT281 sql:
4 ED0314 CREATE
4 ED0314 INDEX [RSBATCHCTRL_PAR~DB] ON [RSBATCHCTRL_PAR]
4 ED0314 ( [JOBNAME] ,
4 ED0314 [JOBCOUNT] ,
4 ED0314 [SERVER] ,
4 ED0314 [HOST] ,
4 ED0314 [WP_NO] ,
4 ED0314 [WP_PID] ,
4 ED0314 [PROCESS_TYPE] )
4 ED0314 WITH ( ONLINE=OFF )
4 ED0314 ON [PRIMARY]
2 ED0314 Line 1: Incorrect syntax near '('.
3 EDA093 "DDL time(___1):" ".........6" milliseconds
2EEGT236 The SQL statement was not executed
2EEDI006 Index " " could not be created completely in the database
2EEGT221 Creation of secondary indexes for table "RSBATCHCTRL_PAR" failed
2EEGT239 Error in step "RSBATCHCTRL_PAR-STEP6"
2 EGT253XTotal time for table "RSBATCHCTRL_PAR": "000:00:00"
2EEGT094 Conversion could not be restarted
2 EGT067 Request for "RSBATCHCTRL_PAR" could not be executed
1 ED0327XProcess..................: "ferrari_12"
1 ED0302X=========================================================================
1 ED0314 DD: Execution of Database Operations
1 ED0302 =========================================================================
1 ED0327 Process..................: "ferrari_12"
1 ED0319 Return code..............: "0"
1 ED0314 Phase 001................: < 1 sec. (Preprocessing of TBATG)
1 ED0314 Phase 002................: < 1 sec. (Partitioning)
1 ED0309 Program runtime..........: "< 1 sec."
1 ED0305 Date, time...............: "03.06.2009", "12:47:21"
1 ED0318 Program end==============================================================
1 ETP166 CONVERSION OF DD OBJECTS (TBATG)
1 ETP110 end date and time : "20090603124721"
1 ETP111 exit code : "8"
1 ETP199 ######################################
System properties:
SAP - BI7.0 with EHP1
Database - MSSQL 2000
OS - Windows2003
Please suggest.
Thanks in advance,
Pavan.

> We have installed EHP1 on our BI7.0 system successfully, later we are trying to apply SPS01 for this EHP but we got the follwoing error during TBATG conversion.
> 2 ED0314 Line 1: Incorrect syntax near '('.
> 3 EDA093 "DDL time(___1):" ".........6" milliseconds
> 2EEGT236 The SQL statement was not executed
This is a known problem with SQL Server 2000, see
Note 1180553 - Syntax error 170 during index creation on SQL 2000
I highly suggest upgrading to SQL Server 2005 or 2008.
Markus

Long running table partitioning job

Dear HANA grus,
I've just finished table partitioning jobs for CDPOS(change document item) with 4 partitions by hash with 3 columns.
Total data volumn is around 340GB and the table size was 32GB !!!!!
(migration job was done without disabling CD, so currently deleting data on the table with RSCDOK99)
Before partitioning, the data volumn of the table was around 32GB.
After partitioning, the size has changed to 25GB.
It took around One and half hour with exclusive lock as mentioned in the HANA adminitration guide.
(It is QA DB, so less complaints)
I thought that I might not can do this in the production DB.
Does anyone hava any idea for accelerating this task?? (This is the fastest DBMS HANA!!!!)
Or Do you have any plan for online table partitioning functionality??(To HANA Development team)
Any comments would be appreciate.
Cheers,
- Jason

Jason,
looks like we're cross talking here...
What was your rationale to partition the table in the first place?
       => To reduce deleting time of CDPOS            (As I mentioned it was almost 10% quantity of whole Data volume, So I would like to save deleting time of the table from any pros of partitioning table like partitioning pruning)
Ok, I see where you're coming from, but did you ever try out if your idea would actually work?
As deletion of data is heavily related with locating the records to be deleted, creating an index would have probably be the better choice.
Thinking about it... you want to get rid of 10% of your data and in order to speed the overall process up, you decide to move 100% of the data into sets of 25% of the data - equally holding their 25% share of the 10% records to be deleted.
The deletion then should run along these 4 sets of 25% of data.
It's surely me, but where is the speedup potential here?
How many unloads happened during the re-partitioning?
       => It was fully uploaded in the memory before partitioning the table by myself.(from HANA studio)
I was actually asking about unloads _during_ the re-partitioning process. Check M_CS_UNLOADS for the time frame in question.
How do the now longer running SQL statements look like?
       => As i mentioned selecting/deleting increased almost twice.
That's not what I asked.
Post the SQL statement text that was taking longer.
What are the three columns you picked for partitioning?
       => mandant, objectclas, tabname(QA has 2 clients and each of them have nearly same rows of the table)
Why those? Because these are the primary key?
I wouldn't be surprised if the SQL statements only refer to e.g. MANDT and TABNAME in the WHERE clause.
In that case the partition pruning cannot work and all partitions have to be searched.
How did you come up with 4 partitions? Why not 13, 72 or 213?
       => I thought each partitions' size would be 8GB(32GB/4) if they are divided into same size(just simple thought), and 8GB size is almost same size like other largest top20 tables in the HANA DB.
Alright, so basically that was arbitrary.
For the last comment of your reply, most people would do partition for their existing large tables to get any benefit of partitioning(just like me). I think your comment can be applied for the newly inserting data.
Well, not sure what "most people" would do.
HASH partitioning a large existing table certainly is not an activity that is just triggered off in a production system. Adding partitions to a range partitions table however happens all the time.
- Lars

Index Vs table partition

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for