Multiple partitions on the shuffle?

Hey, I was thinking about this... could it be done with the shuffle? on a Windows platform?

Hi Kahlil, your thinkings and idea is good. But multiple partitions on the iPod shuffle is not yet itroduced by Apple. However you have the option to use multiple iPods in a computer. (Ref. http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300432)

Similar Messages

Home Directories when installing on multiple partitions

I have a macpro setup with two partitions. Originally one partition assigned to Snow Leopard. I log in using a network user (using OSX server) and that user has local Admin rights. All is well.
I setup a new instance of Snow Leopard on the secondary Partition and logged in using the network user. This had the effect of using the partition 1 Home directory for this user and I can't get the secondary partition to use itself for storing the users home directory.
The workaround I have is to log in to Partition 2 snow leopard with a local admin user then temporarily rename the Users folder on partition 1. Next login to partition 2 as the network user, then everything gets created on partition 2 as expected. Finally rename the Partition 1 Users folder back. Now I can log in to either partitoin with the same user and have different local home setups.
Anyone else had this or is there a better procedure for setting up multiple partitions ? The same happens with LION. I need to keep a snowleoapard partition with all the setup I currently have, but start a new LION partition. I don't want any cross contamination, hence the requirement for separation.

This was my point. I wanted total separation. In order to create that separation (when trying to use a network user) I had to temporarily move the existing Snow Leopard Users folder (on Partition 1) so that the Partition 2 OS (either Snow leopard or LION) will create it's own User directory structure. This is only needed for network users (i.e. ones that authenticate via OSX server).
Once the process of temporarily moving the Users folder, letting the new instance create it's own directories, and renaming back, everything works. i.e. when I startup Snowleopard all operations are within Partition 1 then if I start LION all operations are within Partition 2.
When installing new versions of an O/S I like to have control and manage the change so that I know I have a totally working system. Been doing the same with Linux for years, but Mac OS/X tries to be a bit too clever!

Selecting data from Multiple Partitions in a single select stmt.

Hi all,
My Database is very large & my tables are partitioned.
My question is:
1) If my data is spread across multiple partitions, is there any way to select data from multiple partitions in a single query?
If we dont mention partition name also it works fine, but perofmance wise it will be very slow. (Using EXPLAIN PLAN)
(Note:I dont want to make use of Union concept, i want to do it in a single select statement)
For ex:
qry1.sql:
select empno from emp_trans partition (P012000)
This above query(qry1.sql) will work fine.
qry2.sql:
select empno from emp_trans partition (P012000,P022000)
The above query(qry2.sql) will return will return the following error:
ORA-00933: SQL command not properly ended
If anybody has any solution for this, pls mail me immediately.
Thanks in advance
bye
null

All my queries are dynamically generated. All my tables are also indexed partition wise based on date field. My question is, if i want to mention multiple partition names at the time of generating my query(select), then with parformance will be good. I have refered some books, inthat what they say is to use UNION concept, i dont want to use that, instead i want in a single select statement.
Thaks for ur reply
Bye
null

Can you select more than one partition at the same time?

Thank you in advance.
What is the SQL*Plus syntax to select multiple partitions from a partitioned table?
Example: select tran_date from transaction_table (partition1, partition2, partition3);

I think Justin is correct and you should have statistics in place and a reasonable partition scheme so that the optimizer selects the correct partitions rather than telling it what to do. You paid a lot for partitioning after all.
There are some, possibly misguided, examples in the manuals showing how to create a view so you can delete from a single partition without specifying the partition criteria in the delete statement. This in effect turns partitioning back into DIY partitioning i.e. separate tables, union all and pretend its a single logical table using a view. But backwards.
So to do what you want you just assume the partitions are separate tables, and then use union all to glue the ones you want back together.
select * from sales partition (sales_q1_2000)
union all
select * from sales partition (sales_q1_2001)
union all
select * from sales partition (sales_q1_2003)
union all
select * from sales partition (sales_q1_2004);It probably goes without saying that as well as making the expensive version of partitioning behave like the free alternative, there is the possibility that it will perform like it as well.

"Why Does The Shuffle Songs Feature Perform So Poorly?"

How'dee,
I have an iPod 160G Classic, I've spent the last 3 months taking my 2,247 "Owned" cd's (I'm a retired dj), an ripped them with identical settings and transfered them flawlessly onto my iPod. I now have a total of 26,311 tracks on my iPod. "FWI"- I tranfered each "Complete" album, no individual tracks... I had been looking forward to being able to Shuffle through my music and not actually listening to individual ablums at a time. I work as a security guard and I am able/allowed to use my iPod via my Bose dock.
I have been listening to my iPod in Shuffle Mode for 3 full weeks now and I am finding that I'm continually listening to the same 30 or so albums out of the full 2,247 that are on my iPod, sometimes it will actually play a song from a perticular album and then play Another track from that same album within the next 10 - 15 tracks!
In the end I'm hearing One New Track that I haven't heard yet every 15 - 20 or so tracks while at the same time I'm hearing tracks from the same albums and or groups throughout the 15 - 20 tracks that have played... As an example, I have 4 albums from the group KISS, I hear tracks from those 4 albums atleast 3 - 5 times every day - day & half... Why does the Shuffle Mode work so poorly? I can't see for the life of me why the so-called "Shuffle Mode" doesn't Shuffle through "ALL" of the 2,247 tracks that are on the iPod.
I've even gone as far as to use a cable to plug my iPod into a regular radio allowing me "Not" to charge my iPod until the battery is almost dead, allowing it to play continuously for my entire 8 hour shift in Shuffle Mode. And then just resume the next shift for another 8 hours, again, until the battery is almost dead. I've gotten around 35+ hours per charge over the last 2 weeks.
"My whole reason for spending $350. on this iPod was so that I could listen to my album collection as though I were listening to a radio... shuffling through "All" of my tracks. I'm now sitting here kicking myself in the a$$ for seemingly wasting my money..."
Any insight would be appreciated.
And just to let it be known, I have attempted to play tracks manually just to see if they are even workable transfers and I haven't come across any problems with the music that I put on the iPod.
The ToxicOne...

It is true - "random" does not mean that you should not hear two songs from the same album (or artist) in close proximity. However, as the number of albums increases, the likelihood of hearing multiple (sometimes three or four) cuts from the same album decreases. And the chances of this happening EVERY time a new shuffle is started is even less likely. Comparing flipping a coin (a 0.5 probability of any given result) to a library with over 2000 albums (a .0005 probability of a track from any given album) is comparing apples to oranges. Also, given one of the posts above which indicated hearing the same *progression of songs* indicates that the mathematical algorithm used by Apple to simulate randomness (as there is no such thing as true randomness in computer programming) is just not up to snuff.

Is it possible to have multiple partitions on my hard disk drive and use Bootcamp to install Windows?

Hi all,
Here is my question: I have MBP early 2011 and was trying to install Windows 8 using Bootcamp but the option to install Windows is grayed out so I can’t click the box next to “Install or Remove Windows 7.” Is this because I have multiple partition on my hard disk drive? Is there anyway I can install Windows 8 using Bootcamp without deleting my partitions on my hard disk?
Few more details:
Mountain Lion 10.8.2
Bootcamp 5.0.0
Thanks for your response

You can't create a Boot Camp partition on a drive you've already partitioned, and you can't install Windows 8 through Boot Camp at this time.
(71680)

Multiple Database behind the Weblogic cluster

          Hi,
          We are working on an enterprise-level EJB based application. Because the scalability and fail-over requirement of the application, we have to at least have 2 database in the backend. Ideally, the 2 database should like one for the Weblogic servers in the app server cluster that are accessing them. There are severl possible solutions:
          1. Have one database as the master data source and another database as stand-by. When the master dabase fails, we could use the Oracle hot-failover to failover to the standby database (am I right? ). The bad thing about this solution is that we are wasting a big box doing nothing, just as standby.
          2. Use a database cluster. I saw some of the discussion in the newsgroup. Basically, the database(s) in the cluster will look like one logical database for the app server cluster. Does anyone have any comments on this solution? Please provide details.
          3. We come up a solution which requires partition of the application into several logical funtion groups and partition the data as well. Even though the solution works technically, it will create a management nightmare for the server cluster.
          Anyone has experience with this? Please comment. Thanks a lot!
          Adam


          Weblogic 7 has a new concept called network channel, where there is a section talking
          about clustering over multiple NIC cards. I was confused by the cluster address in
          customized network channel (no example there). I tried to use multiple NIC cards
          for the purpose of network failover, but failed in clustering environment, although
          I succeed in single server environment.
          Kumar Allamraju <[email protected]> wrote:
          >You can set Interface address via admin console's
          >Cluster >> {Cluster Name }
          >
          >on the right hand side you will find InterfaceAddress box.
          >
          >--
          >Kumar
          >
          >zevit wrote:
          >
          >>>It's the JVM & OS who will take adv. of multiple NIC's. We don't have
          >>>anything in WLS that does this thing.
          >>>
          >>>Alternatively you can bind each WLS instance to a specific NIC card
          >>>to effeciently utilize each NIC card.
          >>>
          >>
          >> thank u kumar.. Could u please tell me how do i bind each WSL instance
          >> to a specific NIC ?
          >>
          >

Warehouse partitioning - performance of queries across multiple partitions?

Hi,
We are using Oracle 11.2.0.3 and have a large central fact table with several surrogate ids which have bitmap indexes on them and have fks looking at dimension tables + several measures
(PRODUCT_ID,
CUSTOMER_ID,
DAY_ID,
TRANS_TYPE_ID,
REGION_ID,
QTY
VALUE)
We have 2 distinct sets of queries users look to run for most part, ones accessing all transactions for products regradless of the time those transactions happened (i.e. non-financial queries - about 70%,
queries determining what happened in a particular week - 20% of queries.
Table will have approx 4bn rows in eventually.
Considering adding extra column to this DATE and range partition this to allow us to drop old partitions every year - however this data wouldn't be joined to any other table.
Then considering sub-partitioning by hash of product_id which is surrogate key for product dimension.
Thoughts on performance?
Queries by their nature would hit several sub-partitions.
Thoughts on query performance of queries which access several sub-partitions/partitions versus queries running aganist a single table.
Any other thoughts on partitioning strategy in our situation much apprecaited.
Thanks

>
Thoughts on query performance of queries which access several sub-partitions/partitions versus queries running aganist a single table.
>
Queries that access multiple partitions can improve performance for two use cases: 1) only a subset of the entire table is needed and 2) if the access is done in parallel.
Even if 9 of 10 partitions are needed that can still be better than scanning a single table containing all of the data. And when there is a logical partitioning key (transaction date) that matches typical query predicate conditions then you can get guaranteed benefits by limiting a query to only 1 (or a small number) partition when an index on a single table might not get used at all.
Conversely, if all table data is needed (perhaps there is no good partition key) and parallel option is not available then I wouldn't expect any performance benefit for either single table or partitioning.
You don't mention if you have licensed the parallel option.
>
Any other thoughts on partitioning strategy in our situation much apprecaited.
>
You provide some confusing information. On the one hand you say that 70% of your queries are
>
ones accessing all transactions for products regradless of the time those transactions happened
>
But then you add that you are
>
Considering adding extra column to this DATE and range partition this to allow us to drop old partitions every year
>
How can you drop old partitions every year if 70% of the queries need product data 'regardless of the time those transactions happened'?
What is the actual 'datetime' requirement'? And what is your definition of 'a particular week'? Does a week cross Month and Year boundaries? Does the requirement include MONTHLY, QUARTERLY or ANNUAL reporting?
Those 'boundary' requirements (and the online/offline need) are critical inputs to the best partitioning strategy. A MONTHLY partitioning strategy means that for some weeks two partitions are needed. A weekly partitioning strategy means that for some months two partitions are needed. Which queries are run more frequently weekly or monthly?
Why did you mention sub-partitioning? What benefit do you expect or what problem are you trying to address? And why hash? Hash partitioning guarantees that ALL partitions will be needed for predicate-based queries since Oracle can't prune partitions when it evaluates execution plans.
The biggest performance benefit of partitioning is when the partition keys used have a high correspondence with the filter predicates used in the queries that you run.
Contrarily the biggest management benefit of partitioning is when you can use interval partitioning to automate the creation of new partitions (and subpartitions if used) based solely on the data.
The other big consideration for partitioning, for both performance and management, is the use of global versus local indexes. WIth global indexes (e.g. a global primary key) you can't just drop a partition in isolation; the global primary key needs to be maintained by deleting the corresponding index entries.
On the other hand if your partition key includes the primary key column(s) then you can use a local index for the primary key. Then partition maintenance (drop, exchange) is very efficient.

SSDT SSAS Project: Can't create multiple partitions

"Warning: The destination server is running a SQL Server edition that does not support multiple partitions. Please deploy to another server."
I get this error, when I try to deploy against a SSAS 2012 Developer Edition instance, same happens when I go against a SSAS 2012 Enterprise Edition instance. What part am I missing or is this a SSDT bug ?
I first posted this question on the SSDT forum since it seems that there are two totally indepentent teams that just work by coinscience under the Microsoft brand on a product that by accicent has the same name "SSDT" ;-)

Hi Ernestomawan,
According to your description, you get this warning when you deploy a SQL Server Analysis Service project to Enterprise Edition instance, right? A you can see on the link
Features Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2012(Analysis Services section), Multiple Partitions is supported on
Enterprise, Business Intelligence and Standard(up to 3) editions.
So in your scenario, in SQL Server Data Tool go to Project Property Page and ensure that For Deployment Server Edition Enterprise is selected.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Charlie Liao
TechNet Community Support

Will there performance improvement over separate tables vs single table with multiple partitions?

Will there performance improvement over separate tables vs single table with multiple partitions? Is advisable to have separate tables than having a single big table with partitions? Can we expect same performance having single big table with partitions? What is the recommendation approach in HANA?

Suren,
first off a friendly reminder: SCN is a public forum and for you as an SAP employee there are multiple internal forums/communities/JAM groups available. You may want to consider this.
Concerning your question:
You didn't tell us what you want to do with your table or your set of tables.
As tables are not only storage units but usually bear semantics - read: if data is stored in one table it means something else than the same data in a different table - partitioned tables cannot simply be substituted by multiple tables.
Looked at it on a storage technology level, table partitions are practically the same as tables. Each partition has got its own delta store & can be loaded and displaced to/from memory independent from the others.
Generally speaking there shouldn't be too many performance differences between a partitioned table and multiple tables.
However, when dealing with partitioned tables, the additional step of determining the partition to work on is always required. If computing the result of the partitioning function takes a major share in your total runtime (which is unlikely) then partitioned tables could have a negative performance impact.
Having said this: as with all performance related questions, to get a conclusive answer you need to measure the times required for both alternatives.
- Lars

Installing Lion clean on hard drive with multiple partitions

I have a spring 2008 24" iMac running Snow Leopard.
I am about to put a new 2TB hard drive in it and after I do that I want to do a clean install of Lion on it.
I do not want to upgrade my Snow Leopard install to Lion. I will keep it on my back up drive as a fallback incase of serious workflow incompatiblities with the new OS.
For my workflow I create and use multiple partitions (Mac OS, Windows and multiple HFS+ for data) on my hard drive and I have seen that Lion creates it's own hidden recovery partition as well for the recovery functionality.
My questions are:
1) Will I have issues running Lion on a partition on a hard drive with multiple partitions that have different file systems?
2) If I install Lion into one of these partitions will it create it's recovery partition within the space of the partition it is being installed into?
3) I will be creating a clean install by downloading Lion using the App Store and then burning an installer DVD using instructions I found elsewhere and then using that to do the install on the new drive. Is that the best route to take?
All my current data I will have on a backup external hard drive and after I complete the Lion install on the new larger drive I will manually reinstall all my software and move my data back from my backup drive to the new drive one partition at a time except of course for OS partition. I keep all my real user data outside of that partition anyway.

I believe this article answers most of your questions.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4718
or possibly
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4649
You will most likely run into the error message that "Some features of Mac OS X Lion are not supported for the disk" if you have multiple partitions set up, especially if they were not set up using Bootcamp and/or have serveral different file systems.
You can confirm that the Recovery Partition will not be installed by checking Disk Utility for your current partition map scheme.
This is most definitely not the end of the world as it is quite easy to create an external Recovery disk.
1) No, you shouldn't have issues running Lion, but Recovery HD will not be created.
2) No, and in your case it doesn't sound like it will be installed on your internal drive at all.
3) Yes. If you begin with an empty partition, then install Lion that would be considered a clean install.
Hope that helps.
Autumn

How to Create Multiple Partitions in Windows?

I have just carried out a clean install of Lion then used Boot Camp to install Windows.
With Snow Leopard I had the ability to create multiple partitions in Windows but this seems impossible in Lion for whatever reason.
Can anyone please tell me how to achieve this?

If you're using Boot Camp, I'd post your question on the Boot Camp section:
http://discussions.apple.com/category.jspa?categoryID=237

Time Machine doesn't like external drives with multiple partitions

I've had a problem with Time Machine on both 10.5.0 & 10.5.1 - Time Machine could not create the initial backup regardless of all the things I tried.
I have a Powerbook with a 300Gb Maxtor connected via firewire 800. This drive had been partitioned into three partitions (which I've used with other backup tools without problem).
Apparently the problem I had been having with Time Machine was that there were three separate partitions on the external drive. As soon as I took a chance and wiped all of those partitions and made a single partition, everything was fine.
I had called Apple Tech Support shortly after I got Leopard and when I discovered the problem with Time Machine. I specifically asked if there would be a problem from the multiple partitions and they didn't think there would be, but they were sure. Looks like Apple was wrong.
If you are having problems with Time Machine with a drive that has multiple partitions, trying changing your external into a single partition drive.

You will note that I was referring to a Powerbook and the Apple Partition Scheme. There might be something different happening for Intel/GUID users.
10.5.1 did address other issues with other partition types. Time Machine seems to have trouble with certain partition schemes. I'm not surprised that multiple partitions and GUID works because of things like bootcamp. Apple probably tested specifically for that type of config. They may not have worked all the bugs out of multiple partitions on a Apple Partition Scheme.

Multiple partitions in windows XP

Is it possible to create multiple partitions in windows XP with boot camp?
Pls Anyone Help.

Tuhintt wrote:
Is it possible to create multiple partitions in windows XP with boot camp?
Pls Anyone Help.
What do you mean by "in Windows XP?"
You need to clarify.
Do you mean you want to split the XP partition into several smaller partitions, with parts of XP in each one?

Truncating multiple partitions

I am creating a store proc that will truncate selected partitions of a partitioned table. Is there any easy way to do it than the conventional way of looping through cursor and executing multiple alter commands.
alter table <table name> truncate partition p1
alter table <table name> truncate partition p2
alter table <table name> truncate partition p3
and so on..
I am using 10g.

If truncating multiple partitions existed, it could also support updating global indexes clause (supported currently for truncating one partition) - which behaves differently from complete index rebuild and probably suites better for some cases. Just faced with that "want-this-feature" also ).
Combining maintenance operations for multiple partitions in one "multipartition" operation would be useful in some cases. For example partitions merge in one step would generate many times less redo than equivalent partition cycle. Had to implement that "multipartition" merge using insert into another table, truncate original partitions, merge empty partitions, exchange merged partition with this table, which works faster, but is not so reliable as potential "multipartition" operation...

Multiple partitions on the shuffle?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for