(oracle 8i)Alter Table table coalesce partition

Hi all,
Need assistance in solving a problem. I have a possibly large fragemented table. I tried to run a coalese command ALTER TABLE EMPTY_COPY COALESCE PARTITION
got an error: 'ora -14501 - object is not partitioned'
NOt sure how to proceed, I am working in oracle 8i environment.
Should I do :
ALTER TABLESPACE MY_DATA COALESCE
ALTER INDEX EMPTY_COPY_PK COALESCE
ALTER INDEX EMPTY_COPY_PK REBUILD
ALTER TABLE MY_DATA.EMPTY_COPY MOVE TABLESPACE NEW_DATA
Not sure if the syntax is correct or which to use, are there any redundancies in the commands above.
Thanks kindly for any input you may provide.

thanks.
My real problem is an ora 1653 'UNABLE TO EXTEND TABLE' error where I could not insert into a table. The PCT_INCREASE was at 25 and the next_extext was at 160mb. Way too large. There still looks to be l plenty of space available for an another extent but it is not being allocated.
Would this apply?

Similar Messages

In which oracle release alter table move tablespace introduce

Hi,
Can you please provide me one information that from which oracle realease oracle introduce alter table move tablespace tablespace_name; ...
Thanks

user644122 wrote:
Hi,
Can you please provide me one information that from which oracle realease oracle introduce alter table move tablespace tablespace_name; ...
ThanksDon't know whether it was in Oracle 7, but documentation says that it was in Oracle 8i
Look at this link:
http://www.oracle.com/pls/db102/print_hit_summary?search_string=move+tablespace
By the way, why you need this information?
Edited by: Kamran Agayev A. on Oct 2, 2009 11:54 PM

Alter range partition table to Interval partitioning table.

Hi DBA's,
I have a very big range partitioned table.
Recently we have upgraded our database to 11gR2 which has a feautre called interval partitioning.
Now i want to modify that existing range partitioned table to Interval Partitioning.
can we alter the range partitioned table to interval partitioning table?
I googled for the syntax but i didn't find it, can any one help[ me out on this?
Thanks.

If you ignore the "alter session set NLS_CALENDAR=PERSIAN;" during create/alter, everything else seems to work.
When you set the "alter session..." during inserts, the rows gets inserted into the correct partitions.
Only thing is when you look at HIGH_VALUE, you need to convert from the default GREGORIAN to PERSIAN.

Need to alter maxvalue for one Partition table

Hi Guru's,
We have a table xyz with monthly partitions but tablespaces are in yearly basis.
we created the required partitions using exchange partition. Now the Partition for Dec 2007 is having range of MAXVALUE.
But our requirement is to add partition for 2008 now.
So we want to create 12 monthly partitions for 2008 and with a tablespace for that.
but how to change the MAXVALUE to 2008010100 for the partition DEC2007.
Appreciate any quick help !!

You can split the last partition to change the partition boundaries.
SQL> r
1 create table t(a date)
2 partition by range(a)(
3 partition p1 values less than (to_date('01.12.2007','dd.mm.yyyy')),
4* partition p2 values less than (maxvalue))
Table created.
SQL> alter table t split partition p2 at (to_date('01.01.2008','dd.mm.yyyy'))
2 into (partition p2,partition p3);
Table altered.
SQL> set lines 200
SQL> r
1 select PARTITION_NAME,HIGH_VALUE from user_tab_partitions
2* where table_name='T'
PARTITION_NAME                 HIGH_VALUE
P1                             TO_DATE(' 2007-12-01 00:00:00', 'SYYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS', 'NLS_CALENDAR=GREGORIA
P2                             TO_DATE(' 2008-01-01 00:00:00', 'SYYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS', 'NLS_CALENDAR=GREGORIA
P3                             MAXVALUE

Synchronize Local WF Tables is reverting partitions to NOLOGGING

On ATG.H RUP 4 and 5, there is a bug where the daily Synchronize WF Local Tables concurrent request set is reverting partitions of WF_LOCAL_ROLES to NOLOGGING. If you attempt to restore a database or clone when this request set has run between your hot backup time and your requested restore time, you will not be able to log in due to:
ORA-01578: Oracle data block corrupted (file #66, block #106574)
ORA-26040: Data block was loaded using the NOLOGGING option
ORA-06512: at "APPS.WF_DIRECTORY", line 649
The block corresponds to applsys.wf_local_roles.
Note 433280.1 indicated this is fixed in ATG.H RUP6.
Partitions in Workflow Local Tables are Automatically Switched to NOLOGGING
http://metalink.oracle.com/metalink/plsql/ml2_documents.showDocument?p_database_id=NOT&p_id=433280.1
RUNNING SYNCHRONIZE WF LOCAL TABLES CHANGES PARTITION TO NOLOGGING.
https://metalink.oracle.com/metalink/plsql/showdoc?db=Bug&id=5942254
During a Backup, WF_LOCAL_ROLES Is Showing Corrupt Block
http://metalink.oracle.com/metalink/plsql/ml2_documents.showDocument?p_database_id=NOT&p_id=369535.1
I hacked around it by truncating wf_local_roles in the target, then exported it from the source, imported in the target instance and ran the Synchronize WF Local Tables request set:
Unable To Login After Clone
http://metalink.oracle.com/metalink/plsql/ml2_documents.showDocument?p_database_id=NOT&p_id=418130.1
We altered all the wf_local_roles partitions to logging yesterday in the source instance, and one reverted back to nologging today already. Pretty annoying...

thanks michael for sharing that with us
fadi

Aggregate tables have many partitions per request

We are having some performance issues dealing with aggregate tables and
Db partitions. We are on BW3.5 Sp15 and use Oracle DB 9.2.06. After
some analysis, we can see that for many of our aggregates, there are
sometimes as much as a hundred partitions in the aggregates fact table.
If we look at infocube itself, there are only a few requests (for
example, 10). However, we do often delete and reload requests
frequently. We understood that there should only be one partition per
request in the aggregate (infocube is NOT set up for partitioning by
other than request).
We suspect the high number of partitions is causing come performance
issues. But we don;t understand why they are being created.
I have even tried deleting the aggregate (all aggregate F tables and
partitions were dropped) and reloading, and we still see many many more
partitions than requests. (we also notice that many of the partitions
have a very low record count - many less than 10 records in partition).
We'd like to understand what is causing this. Could line item
dimensions or high cardinality play a role?
On a related topic-
We also have seen an awful lot of empty partitions in both the infocube
fast table and the aggregate fact table. I understand this is probably
caused by the frequent deletion and reload of requests, but I am
surprised that the system does not do a better job of cleaning up these
empty partitions automatically. (We are aware of program
SAP_DROP_EMPTY_FPARTITIONS).
I am including some files which show these issues via screen shots and
partition displays to help illustrate the issue.
Any help would be appreciated.
Brad Daniels
302-275-1980
215-592-2219

Ideally the aggregates should get compressed by themselves - there could be some change runs that have affected the compression.
Check the following :
1. See if compressing the cube and rolling up the aggregates will merge the partitions.
2. What is the delta mode for the aggregates ( are you loading deltas for aggregates or full loads ) ?
3. Aggregates are partitioned according to the infocube and since you are partitioning according to the requests - the same is being done on the aggregates.
Select another partitioning characteristic if possible. - because it is ideally recommended that request should not be used for partitioning.
Arun
Assign points if it helps..

How to make a table to be partitioned automatically in 10.1.0.2.0 ?

Hi
I am using Oracle database 10.1.0.2.0.
I created a table. I have done partition on Date column.
Initially I created partitions for 2007 year.
Now I should create partitions for 2008 year. So every year, I have to add partitions manually.
Could any one help me, how can I automate this process.?
Thank you,
Regards,
Gowtham sen.

I don't know.. how much it would effect.
In my case, I am having around 100 tables which are partitioned using date column.
I am loading a table with 5 crore records on an average for its load frequence.
If I use trigger, it would verify..whether the value in the coumn is new value or not.
So I am thinking.. it would effect.
Thank you,
Regards,
Gowtham Sen.

Table compress or Partition compress or both

Hi,
I have an oracle table with approx 250 Mill. records and approx size is around 35 gb.
I want to save space by compressing the table.
I am not sure which compression is more effective either table compress or partitions within table should be compressed or both ?
Please advise,
JP

Hi,
this is a compromise between manageablility and performance.
If you work with partitions you give yourself a change to work with smaller sets of data (which under certain circumstances unload your DB with unecessary IOs).
For the rest it (space efficiency) it depends highly on the nature of what you're compressing (normal columns, blob/clob, 'redundancy' of the data ...) and which method you're using (mormal compression, Advanced compression...)
I would suggest you to try the different methods over a quite big sample of your table (with partitioning / not paritionning, with Advanced compression, normal compression).
I would also test bulk inserts/update/deltes (with heavy volumes), and also try the main queries you're using against this table an compare IOs/CPU
I suggest you to have a look to this thread:
Implement Advanced compression
(With such volumes, I guess you'll benefit (in most of the situation) from the compression...
Edited by: user11268895 on Jul 22, 2010 11:11 AM

Error while altering a table.

Hi All,
When i tried to alter a table. I got the following error.
SQL> ALTER TABLE SALES_ORDER_TRANS_IHST ADD(SUPER VARCHAR2(1),REASON_CD VARCHAR2(10));
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-00069: cannot acquire lock -- table locks disabled for SALES_ORDER_TRANS_IHST
Then I tried to enable table lock for that table. Again got error.
SQL> ALTER TABLE SALES_ORDER_TRANS_IHST enable table lock;
ALTER TABLE SALES_ORDER_TRANS_IHST enable table lock
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-00054: resource busy and acquire with NOWAIT specified

ORA-00054: resource busy and acquire with NOWAIT specified The table is currently in use by something else.
Werner

Refreshing Entity Objects after Altering the table

Hi,
My Entity Object is based on a table... and View Objects on the Entity Objects. Now if I alter the table (just changing the width of the column), that change is not visible on the Entity Object. Is there any way I can automatically refresh the Entity Objects after altering the table(only column width is changed).
(Changes made to Entity Objects manually are reflected in the View Object correctly.)
Regards
Faiyaz

'changing the width of the column' means changing the size of the column in the table description in the database. For e.g.. In the original table I had a column OIL_KEY NUMBER(6). Now I change the column to be of size 12 i.e. OIL_KEY NUMBER(12). This does not get refreshed in the Entity Object.

Can Oracle view refer a table in Sql Server Database

Can a view created in Oracle database refer a table created in SQL Server database. If yes, how do we do it. Code will be very help full.
Again, if yes does it require any special software and what would be price of that software.
Thanks for your response in advance.
Venkat Sathiamurthy

You would need to configure Oracle Heterogeneous Connectivity to create a database link to the SQL Server system. This can either be done via the Oracle Transparent Gateway for Microsoft SQL Server, which retails for $15,000 per server at http://store.oracle.com or by configuring Oracle Generic Connectivity and using ODBC to go after the SQL Server data. Depending on the operating system you run Oracle on, there may be a free (or cheap) ODBC driver for SQL Server that could be used.
Justin
Distributed Database Consulting, Inc.
http://www.ddbcinc.com/askDDBC

Static Tables Creation In oracle & Diff Between Static table ,Dynamic table

Static Tables Creation In oracle & Diff Between Static table ,Dynamic table

972471 wrote:
Static Tables Creation In oracle & Diff Between Static table ,Dynamic tableAll tables in a well designed application should be static tables.
Whilst it's possible to execute dynamic code and therefore create tables dynamically at run time, this is considered poor design and should be avoided in 99.99% of cases... though for some reason some people still think they need to do this, and it's never really justified.
So what issue are you facing that you need to even bother considering dynamic tables?

How to Display Data from Oracle E Business Suite tables in ADF

Hi,
I am new to ADF.
I have a requirement to Create an ADF page for Search Results Screen.
However the result data is from one of the Oracle E Business Suite Tables.
ie I need to create a Screen where user will enter a Purchase Order Number and Click on Button.
The Screen should show details from PO_HEADERS_ALL (from Oracle ERP Database Table) based on the entered PO Number.
Is it possible to implement the same? Can some one guide me how to do it?
Thanks,
Kamath

Hi,
Is there a way where I can create a VO in ADF to which I can insert records dynamically from a source and the Source connects to E Business Suite tables and returns results ie BPEL etc.
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E15523_01/web.1111/b31974/bcadvvo.htm#sm0341
Just replace the PLSQL example with your data source
Can ADF invoke SOA which inturn connects to Oracle E Business Suite and fetches the data from Oracle tables and pass it back to ADF? Is it possible
Yes. Just use a WS proxy client to access the SOA entry point (WSDL) and follow the link above
Frank

Modify HUGE HASH partition table to RANGE partition and HASH subpartition

I have a table with 130,000,000 rows hash partitioned as below
----RANGE PARTITION--
CREATE TABLE TEST_PART(
C_NBR CHAR(12),
YRMO_NBR NUMBER(6),
LINE_ID CHAR(2))
PARTITION BY RANGE (YRMO_NBR)(
PARTITION TEST_PART_200009 VALUES LESS THAN(200009),
PARTITION TEST_PART_200010 VALUES LESS THAN(200010),
PARTITION TEST_PART_200011 VALUES LESS THAN(200011),
PARTITION TEST_PART_MAX VALUES LESS THAN(MAXVALUE)
CREATE INDEX TEST_PART_IX_001 ON TEST_PART(C_NBR, LINE_ID);
Data: -
INSERT INTO TEST_PART
VALUES ('2000',200001,'CM');
INSERT INTO TEST_PART
VALUES ('2000',200009,'CM');
INSERT INTO TEST_PART
VALUES ('2000',200010,'CM');
VALUES ('2006',NULL,'CM');
COMMIT;
Now, I need to keep this table from growing by deleting records that fall b/w a specific range of YRMO_NBR. I think it will be easy if I create a range partition on YRMO_NBR field and then create the current hash partition as a sub-partition.
How do I change the current partition of the table from HASH partition to RANGE partition and a sub-partition (HASH) without losing the data and existing indexes?
The table after restructuring should look like the one below
COMPOSIT PARTITION-- RANGE PARTITION & HASH SUBPARTITION --
CREATE TABLE TEST_PART(
C_NBR CHAR(12),
YRMO_NBR NUMBER(6),
LINE_ID CHAR(2))
PARTITION BY RANGE (YRMO_NBR)
SUBPARTITION BY HASH (C_NBR) (
PARTITION TEST_PART_200009 VALUES LESS THAN(200009) SUBPARTITIONS 2,
PARTITION TEST_PART_200010 VALUES LESS THAN(200010) SUBPARTITIONS 2,
PARTITION TEST_PART_200011 VALUES LESS THAN(200011) SUBPARTITIONS 2,
PARTITION TEST_PART_MAX VALUES LESS THAN(MAXVALUE) SUBPARTITIONS 2
CREATE INDEX TEST_PART_IX_001 ON TEST_PART(C_NBR,LINE_ID);
Pls advice
Thanks in advance

Sorry for the confusion in the first part where I had given a RANGE PARTITION instead of HASH partition. Pls read as follows;
I have a table with 130,000,000 rows hash partitioned as below
----HASH PARTITION--
CREATE TABLE TEST_PART(
C_NBR CHAR(12),
YRMO_NBR NUMBER(6),
LINE_ID CHAR(2))
PARTITION BY HASH (C_NBR)
PARTITIONS 2
STORE IN (PCRD_MBR_MR_02, PCRD_MBR_MR_01);
CREATE INDEX TEST_PART_IX_001 ON TEST_PART(C_NBR,LINE_ID);
Data: -
INSERT INTO TEST_PART
VALUES ('2000',200001,'CM');
INSERT INTO TEST_PART
VALUES ('2000',200009,'CM');
INSERT INTO TEST_PART
VALUES ('2000',200010,'CM');
VALUES ('2006',NULL,'CM');
COMMIT;
Now, I need to keep this table from growing by deleting records that fall b/w a specific range of YRMO_NBR. I think it will be easy if I create a range partition on YRMO_NBR field and then create the current hash partition as a sub-partition.
How do I change the current partition of the table from hash partition to range partition and a sub-partition (hash) without losing the data and existing indexes?
The table after restructuring should look like the one below
COMPOSIT PARTITION-- RANGE PARTITION & HASH SUBPARTITION --
CREATE TABLE TEST_PART(
C_NBR CHAR(12),
YRMO_NBR NUMBER(6),
LINE_ID CHAR(2))
PARTITION BY RANGE (YRMO_NBR)
SUBPARTITION BY HASH (C_NBR) (
PARTITION TEST_PART_200009 VALUES LESS THAN(200009) SUBPARTITIONS 2,
PARTITION TEST_PART_200010 VALUES LESS THAN(200010) SUBPARTITIONS 2,
PARTITION TEST_PART_200011 VALUES LESS THAN(200011) SUBPARTITIONS 2,
PARTITION TEST_PART_MAX VALUES LESS THAN(MAXVALUE) SUBPARTITIONS 2
CREATE INDEX TEST_PART_IX_001 ON TEST_PART(C_NBR,LINE_ID);
Pls advice
Thanks in advance

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

(oracle 8i)Alter Table table coalesce partition

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for