Query between in partition table

hello,
i have been trying to get this query optmized when using BETWEEN.
the below query has taking around 20 sec to execute, can someone suggest me
to improve the performance?
table is partioned with transaction_dt and have local index also statistics are collected.
1 explain plan for
2 SELECT *
3    FROM Tb_Bookkeeping_Trans_Base
4* WHERE TRANSACTION_DT between '06-apr-10' and '07-apr-2010'
13:26:57 SQL> /
Explained.
Elapsed: 00:00:00.15
13:26:58 SQL>
13:26:58 SQL>
13:27:01 SQL> select * from table(dbms_xplan.display);
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Plan hash value: 3757902876
| Id | Operation                           | Name                           | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     | Pstart| Pstop |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                    |                                |   151K|    44M| 7363   (2)| 00:01:29 |       |       |
|* 1 | FILTER                             |                                |       |       |            |          |       |       |
|   2 |   PARTITION RANGE ITERATOR          |                                |   151K|    44M| 7363   (2)| 00:01:29 |   KEY |    10
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY LOCAL INDEX ROWID| TB_BOOKKEEPING_TRANS_BASE      |   151K|    44M| 7363
|* 4 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN                | TB_BOOKKEEPING_TRANS_BASE_IDX2 |   154K|       |   757   (2)| 00:00
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   1 - filter('06-apr-10'<=TO_DATE(' 2010-04-07 00:00:00', 'syyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss'))
   4 - access("TRANSACTION_DT">='06-apr-10' AND "TRANSACTION_DT"<=TO_DATE(' 2010-04-07 00:00:00', 's

Something rather strange is happening to your date variables in the "Predicate Information" section below the plan.
The first thing I would try is passing proper dates instead of character strings, i.e
SELECT *
FROM tb_bookkeeping_trans_base
WHERE transaction_dt BETWEEN DATE '2010-04-06' AND DATE '2010-04-07'

Similar Messages

Performance between two partitionned tables with different structure

Hi,
I would like if there is a difference between two partitionned tables with different structure in term of performance (access, query, insertions, updates ).
I explain myself in detail :
I have a table that stores one value every 10 minutes in a day (so we have 144 values (24*6) in the whole day), with the corresponding id.
Here is the structure :
| Table T1 |
+ id PK |
+ date PK |
+ sample1 |
+ sample2 |
+ ... |
+ sample144 |
The table is partionned on the column date, with a partionned every months. The primary key is based on the columns (id, date).
There is an additionnal index on the column (id) (is it useful ?).
I would like to know if it is better to have a table with just (id, date, value) , so for one row in the first table we'll have 144 rows in the future? table. The partition will already be on the columns (id, date) with the index associated.
What are the gains or loss in performance with this new structure ( access, DMLs , storage ) ?
I discuss with the Java developers and they say it is simpler to manage in their code.
Oracle version : Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.2.0.3.0 - 64bit Production
Thanks & Regards
From France
Oliver
Edited by: 998239 on 5 avr. 2013 01:59

I mean storage in tablespaces and datafiles on disk.
Can you justify please and give me concrete arguments why the two structures are equivalent ( except inserting data in T(id, date,value))
because i have to make a report.i didnt say any thing like
two structures are equivalent ( except inserting data in T(id, date,value)i said
About structure : TABLE1(id, date, value) is better than TABLE1(id, date, sample1, .... sample144)because
1) oracle has restriction for numbers of column. Ok you can have 144 columns now but for future if you must have more than 1000 columns , what will you do?
2) Restrictions on Table Compression (Table compression is not supported for tables with more than 255 columns.)
3) store same type values on diffrent columns is bad practise
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/schema.htm#i4383
i remember i seen Toms article about this but now i cant find it sorry ((( if i found i will post here

EXCHANGE SUBPARTITION between two Partitioned tables

DB Version: 10.2.0.5
We have :
Table A(Range-List Partitioned):
Partition A1 -> Sub-Partition S1A1 and S2A1
Partition A2 -> Sub-Partition S1A2 and S2A2
Table B(Range-List Partitioned):
Partition B1 -> Sub-Partition S1B1 and S2B1
Partition B2 -> Sub-Partition S1B2 and S2B2
I would like to EXCHANGE SUBPARITION A.S1A1 with B.S1B1, and S2A1 with S2B1 and S1A2 with S1B2 ...so on. Which means, how do I exchange subpartitions between two similar tables?
The following statement does not work...
ALTER TABLE A EXCHANGE SUBPARTITION S1A1
WITH TABLE B SUBPARTITION S1B1 INCLUDING INDEXES;
Please advice.

Hi,
ALTER TABLE A EXCHANGE SUBPARTITION S1A1 WITH TABLE B INCLUDING INDEXES;
Read the document
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/itss/docs/oracle/10g/server.101/b10739/partiti.htm
Regards
Hitgon

Query Needed for Partitioning table

Hi,
I have created a table called Test. There is a column named business_name.
There are several businesses like ABC,BCD,ADE....
There will be lakhs of rows corresponding to each business, i mean there will be lakhs of entires corresponding to ABC,BCD....
So i like to partition the table according to business_name so that the search will be more faster.As we had partitioned according to the business_name, i hope we need to search only on the partition corresponding to the particular business.
can any one provide the Query to partition the table ' TEST ' according to the column ' business_name ' .
Also can anyone provide Query to modify the already existing table ' TEST ' to incorporate partition for the column ' business_name '.

We can partiton a table by the following
create table Generalledger (
     record_id     number,
     business_name     varchar2(3)
     sales_dt     date,
     amount     number(10)
partition by list (business_name)
partition ct values ('ABC'),
partition ca values ('BCD'),
partition def values (default)
But if we dont know the values like 'ABC' , 'BCD'
....how can we do the partitionuse SQL to generate part (or all) of your DDL statement. The following will output one partition statement for each business_name:
SELECT DISTINCT 'partition p_' || BUSINESS_NAME || ' values (''' ||
                 BUSINESS_NAME || '''),'
FROM GENERALLEDGER;

Querying on a partitioned table

Suppose I have a partitioned by range table (for exammple partitioned by month). In order for the queries to be effective and to benefit from partitioning, does the query has to be made on the specific partition, or it doesn't matter?
For example, assuming that 'my_table' is partitioned by range on the field 'month', which will be faster, Query A or Query B:
Query A:
select * from my_table partition (october_data) where month = '10'
Query B:
select * from my_table where month = '10'

The performance will be exactly the same but I would use the second query so that I dont have to specify the partition name.
I recommand you to use a date column and not a number column. How otherwise would you difference october 2003 from october 2004?
Also if you range partition your table over a date you may without any problem change from monthly partitions to weekley partitions.
HTH
Maurice

How to dd Partition Table through First Partition

Hi; I have a flash drive which has a single NTFS partition that fills up less space than the whole drive (so there's a bunch of empty/unused space at the end of the drive). I'd like to use dd to make an image from the very beginning of the drive (to catch the partition table) through the end of the NTFS partition, ignoring the empty space after it. I tried the commands below but they didn't seem to work (a copy of the drive had partition table issues):
dd count=1 bs=512 if=/dev/sdb of=partition_table.img
dd bs=8M if=/dev/sdb1 of=sdb1.img
cat sdb1.img >> partition_table.img
rm sdb1.img
mv partition_table.img mydrive.img
Any ideas? Am I failing to capture something between the partition table and the first partition? Or is it possible my partition table is not 512 bytes?

My suggestion is to dd the MBR (dd if=/dev/XXX of=<image file> bs=512 count=1) and use ntfsclone or fsarchiver to make the image.
But if you want to use dd for the whole image:
$ fdisk -l /dev/sda
Disk /dev/sda: 251.1 GB, 251059544064 bytes, 490350672 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk label type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x4d9ddc04
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 2048 2099199 1048576 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 * 2099200 2303999 102400 83 Linux
/dev/sda3 2304000 490350671 244023336 8e Linux LVM
To image everything through the first partition, I would (dd if=/dev/sda of=image bs=512 count=2099200). I stop at 1+ the end of the partition, because the first sector is 0, rather than 1. You can also modify the bs for better performance, but you'll have to modify the count accordingly. For a 1M bs I think you divide the count by 2048 (FYI, this is completely unrelated to the fact that the partition starts on sector 2048). But I would suggest you do the math yourself.

Query to Partitioned Table

I have two partition
upto_mar_2011 , upto_jun_2011
table_name : order
1> if I run query as below
Select * from order where order_date =to_date('23/03/2011','dd/mm/yyyy');
Oracle will automatically search the data in Partition upto_mar_2011
or it will search the data in whole table .
2> Or I have to give query as below
Select * from order partition (upto_mar_2011) where order_date =to_date('23/03/2011','dd/mm/yyyy');
Is there any difference between this two query

OraFighter wrote:
Is it enough to write as below
Select * from order where order_date = to_date('23/03/2011','dd/mm/yyyy')
or order_date = to_date(('23/05/2011','dd/mm/yyyy');
and CBO will search the data only the partition where it is available.
Wheather it is span in one or two or three partition
it will ignore all other partition automaticallyCorrect. It is called partition pruning. This is the approach you should use for application code. Applications should not be concerned with partitioning - should not need to know partition names and other physical attributes of the physical table it is using.
You can also see partition pruning when looking at the execution plan of such a SQL statement.
The only code that will deal with partition names and the physical aspects of the table, is maintenance code. For example, you need to maintain a sliding window of 32 days in the date ranged partitioned table. This code needs to determine which partitions are older than 32 days and drop them. And then add new partitions for future processing. This code deals with the physical layer and not the logical layer.
It is important to keep the two apart and not mix physical stuff into the logical layer that the app is using. Mixing it means that changes to optimise performance and leverage new features cannot be made to the physical layer, as it will break the app layer code.

Partition Table Looks Different Between OSX and Windows 7

Hey all,
I recently replaced the hard drive on my 2007 iMac, going from the 320GB drive to a 1 TB drive. It actually worked! The previous drive was failing in very odd ways, though booting into the Windows side (more on dual boot later) always seemed to work, and S.M.A.R.T. always reported that the physical drive seemed OK.
The previous drive (320 GB) had around 200GB devoted to OSX and 100GB partitioned off for a working Windows 7 installation (custom installed x64 Win7 Ultimate). I had the Windows system image backed up to my NAS, and had a Windows system bootable disc to restore that image.
After replacing the drive (and almost crying that I had actually done it right), I first restored OSX from a Time Machine backup, and let it take the full 1TB of space as Journalled HFS+. Then, I used Disk Utility to shrink OSX down to 500GB, and created a second partition (formatted to NTFS) with the remaining 500GB.
Now, restoring a Windows system image is an odd thing, as it tries to do a lot of partition work as opposed to simply restoring the Windows install to a partition. I tried Macrium Reflect first (made a backup in that, too), and it looked like it was going to let me restore to the second partition. It completed the restore...and the entire hard drive was hosed. Partitions had been moved, renamed, resized, and nothing was bootable. I had to use Recovery from an external USB thumb drive to go back to the single, full-drive install of OSX.
Then I tried again. Made the second NTFS partition and used the basic Windows System Restore disk to restore from the standard system image I had on the NAS. I was not expecting this to work. But it did. Windows started showing up in Startup Manager when "option" was pressed on bootup, and both OSX and Windows booted properly and ran fine. This is where I (finally) get to the supreme oddities:
OSX Disk Utility still reports two 500GB partitions, one for OSX and one for Windows.
In OSX the Windows partition shows as having NO DATA on it. Not sure what would happen if I tried to write a file to it when mounted, but there is no data on it when viewed from OSX (I was always able to see the Windows files when I mounted that partition on the previous drive).
The Windows partition does not show up as a valid bootable system in System Prefs --> Startup Disk (naturally, I suppose, since OSX doesn't think there is anything there).
From the WINDOWS side, Windows still sees the old partition table: 200GB for the "unknown" HFS partition, and then the rest of the space can be devoted to Windows (started as 100GB, but I was ablt to expand it to use the remaining ~750GB!). Windows thinks it can have 750GB of space even though I know its partition is only 500GB in size!
Windows cannot see the OSX HFS partition data using HFSExplorer. It CAN see the HFS partition on the attached backup drive (the drive I use for Time Machine).
GParted (a partition program on a Linux bootabld CD-ROM) shows the same partitions as OSX Disk Utility (2x500GB), and also thinks the Windows NTFS partition is empty (all space reports as "unused").
Did I mention both OSX and Windows work fine???
There are, of course, two other partitions on the drive: the first partition is the 200MB one I always see (EFI/GUID portion?), and then between the HFS and NTFS partitions is the 600MB recovery partition (which also shows at option-pressed boot time). OSX, GParted, and Windows see all four partitions, and in the same order. It is just that Windows sees the wrong sizes, and OSX cannot see any data in the Windows partition.
Surely this is all going to break spectacularly at some point, isn't it? What if I ever did write a file to the Windows side from OSX, or what if OSX starts taking more space than the 200GB Windows thinks is the max for that partition? What if I try to make Windows use more than 500GB because it thinks it has almost 800GB to use? What if I defrag the Windows drive?
I had no idea a partition table could look this goofy and yet still have everything be bootable and workable. Is there something I can do to get everything in sync? Basically, I am assuming I need to get Windows to do some low-level kung fu in Disk Manager in order to properly get everything lined up with the "right" partitions as reported by both GParted and OSX Disk Utility. But how do I do that?
By the way, any ideas that totally nuke the drive and start from scratch are completely fine (if it seems like they are doing something different enough that I'd give it a try). I have good backups of both OSX and Windows and have restored them about a half dozen times already as I dealt with the previous failing hard drive and with trying to get dual-boot working again. Not to mention, this iMac is now my secondary machine to the new Mac Mini I got a couple weeks back when I wasn't sure how much more life I was going to get from this 6+ year old iMac.
Thanks for listening to me ramble about this very odd issue, and a huge THANK YOU in advance to anyone who has ideas to help.
Thanks,
sutekh138

Update:
I am pretty sure the issue is a simple GPT/MBR discrepancy.
I installed rEFIt and used it's partitioning tool (gptsync built in) upon bootup. It was able to show the GPT table and the MBR table, but it thinks the second partition of the drive (the Mac OSX bootable partition) is "extended" in the MBR table and says "will not touch this disk."
However, it does look like an MBR sync should be straightforward, as there four partitions in the GPT table and four in the MBR (and MBR allows a max of four, AFAIK). I just need gptsync to relax some rules. I found a link to a supposedly newer version of gptsync compiled for OSX, so I will try that later.
First, I will try Partition Wizard, a free tool I found for the Windows side. It has a "Repair MBR" option that I would have tried last night if I weren't running a new Windows Image Backup in case all of this goes haywire. *smile* The PW tool also has an option to change the MBR over to GPT entirely. That might work, but then I am not sure Windows 7 will boot (from what I read, x64 Win7 running on EFI-enabled hardware should work, but who knows).
Anyway, I will try the following things, in order, until something works, when I get home tonight:
From Windows, run Partition Wizard and try "Repair MBR".
From OSX, download recent gptsync and try to run it.
From Windows, use Partition Wizard to do a full MBR --> GPT conversion.
Nuke the Windows partition in OSX Disk Utility, expand the HFS partition to take up the whole drive, and then add a Windows-bootable partition via Boot Camp-ish command line commands (diskutil). Because if nothing else works, I have to assume I just created the partitions wrong in the first place such that a Windows restore miraculously works, but the partition weirdness is just a timebomb waiting to happen.
Finally, if none of the above work, I'll just get things back to the way they now work and wait for the timebomb to (possibly never) go off. *smile*
I'll update this thread if I get something figured out, in case anyone else stumbles upon it...
Thanks,
sutekh138

Partition Table Query taking Too Much Time

I have created partition table and Created local partition index on a column whose datatype is DATE.
Now when I Query table and use index column in the where clause It is scaning all the table (Full scan) . The quey is :
Select * From mytable
where to_char(transaction_date, 'DD-MON-YY') = '01-Aug-07';
I have to use to_char function not to_date due to Front end application problem.

Before we go too far with this, if you manually query with TO_DATE on the variable instead of TO_CHAR on the column, does the query actually use the index?
The TO_CHAR on the column will definitely stop Oracle from using any index on the column. If the query will use the index if you TO_DATE the variable, as I see it, you have three options. First, fix the application problem that won't let you use TO_DATE from the application. Second, change the application to call a function returning a ref cursor, get the date string as a parameter to the function, and do the TO_DATE in the function.
Third, you could consider creating a function-based index on TO_CHAR(transaction_date, 'dd-Mon-yy'). This would be the least desirable option, particularly if you would also be selecting records based on a range of transaction_dates, since it loses a lot of information that the optimizer could use in devising an efficient query plan. It could also change your results for a range scan.
John

Creating SELECT query between 3 tables

Hi there,
Im trying to create a SELECT query between 3 tables and it is driving me round the bend.
I have 3 tables connected together which are:
MODUL
modulid
modulname
modulevel
STUDENT
studentid
surname
inits
s e x
phone
email
logon
STUDREGOCCUR
modulid
acyear
semester
occletter
studentid
result
I want to select the fields surname, inits, studentid from the STUDENT table, modulname from the MODUL table and result from my STUDREGOCCUR table that is NOT NULL.
I have tried SELECT STUDENT.STUDENTID, STUDENT.INITS, STUDENT.SURNAME, MODUL.MODULNAME, STUDREGOCCUR.RESULT WHERE STUDREGOCCUR.RESULT IS NOT NULL;
I have also tried many other ways and done research hwich hasnt really helped me unfortunately.
Im quite new to SELECT queries and im not sure where im going wrong, i would greatly appreciate if someone could help me solve my problem.
Thanks for the help :)
Edited by: user633643 on 06-Dec-2008 08:09

If you want data from multiple tables you would need to perform a join. The general form would be:
select t1.cola, t2.col2, t3.col.x
from table_a a, table_b b, table_c c
where a.key = b.key
and b.key = c.key
or perhaps c relates back directly to a so it is a.key = c.key where key can be any column whose value is equilivent in what it represents to the value it is being compared to, that is, student_number = student_number or the columns regardless of name are both building numbers, room numbers, etc ....
This is not your exact solution but it should help.
HTH -- Mark D Powell --

Query regarding Partition table Explain plan

Hello,
We are amidst a tuning activity, wherein a large table has been partitioned for better administration. During testing, I was analyzing the explain plans for long running sql's and found a piece that I was unable to understand. The PSTART and PSTOP columns show ROWID as its value, which in normal partition pruning scenario be the Partition number or the KEY. I tried to look around for this issue but did not get enough information. Can anybody help me of what it means? Also, if there is a good explanation of the same, it will be extremely helpful.
The snippet from explain plan looks like:
| Id | Operation                                | Name                          | Rows | Bytes |TempSpc| Cost (%CPU)| Time     | Pstart| Pstop |
7 |        TABLE ACCESS BY GLOBAL INDEX ROWID| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX             | 43874 | 9083K|       | 1386   (1)| 00:00:17 | ROWID | ROWID |
On another similar query it looks like:
| Id | Operation                             | Name                         | Rows | Bytes |TempSpc| Cost (%CPU)| Time     | Pstart| Pstop |
|   6 |     TABLE ACCESS BY GLOBAL INDEX ROWID| XXXXXXXXXXXXXX               | 22455 | 4648K|       |   456   (1)| 00:00:06 |     9 |     9 |
I have another query with regards to the Partition tables. Does it, require/benefit if, the Indexes to be in partitioned mode? I tried to read about it but did not get a conclusive evidence. I am trying to test it and post here the outcome, but if anybody has experience of working with it, it would be great to have some advice.
Oracle Version:- 10.2.0.4
Regards,
Purvesh.

Hi Purvesh.
Great explanation and example on this this topic...
Ask Tom &quot;explain plan on range-partitioned table&quot;
Hope this help.

ORA-00604 ORA-00904 When query partitioned table with partitioned indexes

Got ORA-00604 ORA-00904 When query partitioned table with partitioned indexes in the data warehouse environment.
Query runs fine when query the partitioned table without partitioned indexes.
Here is the query.
SELECT al2.vdc_name, al7.model_series_name, COUNT (DISTINCT (al1.vin)),
al27.accessory_code
FROM vlc.veh_vdc_accessorization_fact al1,
vlc.vdc_dim al2,
vlc.model_attribute_dim al7,
vlc.ppo_list_dim al18,
vlc.ppo_list_indiv_type_dim al23,
vlc.accy_type_dim al27
WHERE ( al2.vdc_id = al1.vdc_location_id
AND al7.model_attribute_id = al1.model_attribute_id
AND al18.mydppolist_id = al1.ppo_list_id
AND al23.mydppolist_id = al18.mydppolist_id
AND al23.mydaccytyp_id = al27.mydaccytyp_id
AND ( al7.model_series_name IN ('SCION TC', 'SCION XA', 'SCION XB')
AND al2.vdc_name IN
('PORT OF BALTIMORE',
'PORT OF JACKSONVILLE - LEXUS',
'PORT OF LONG BEACH',
'PORT OF NEWARK',
'PORT OF PORTLAND'
AND al27.accessory_code IN ('42', '43', '44', '45')
GROUP BY al2.vdc_name, al7.model_series_name, al27.accessory_code

I would recommend that you post this at the following OTN forum:
Database - General
General Database Discussions
and perhaps at:
Oracle Warehouse Builder
Warehouse Builder
The Oracle OLAP forum typically does not cover general data warehousing topics.

Partitioning - query on large table v. query accessing several partitions

Hi,
We are using partitioning on a large fact table, however, in deciding partitioning strategy looking for advice regarding queries which have to access several partitions versus query against a large table.
What is quicker - a query which acccesses a large table or a query which accesseses several partitions to return results. I
Need to partition due to size/admin etc. but want to make sure queries which need to access > 1 partition are not significantly slower than ones which access a large table by comparison.
Ones which access just one partition fine but some queries have to accesse several partitions
Many Thanks

Here are your choices stated another way. Is it better to:
1. Get one weeks data by reading one month's data and throwing away 75% of it (assumes partitioning by month)
2. Get one weeks data by reading three weeks of it and throwing away part of two weeks? (assumes partitioning by week)
3. Get one weeks data by reading seven daily partitions and not having to throw away any of it? (assumes daily partitioning)
I have partitioned as frequently as every 5-15 minutes (banking and telecom) and have yet to find a situation where partitions larger than the minimum date-range for the majority of queries makes sense.
Anyone can insert data into a table ... an extra millisecond per insert is generally irrelevant. What you want to do is optimize reading the data where that extra millisecond per row, over millions of rows, adds up to measurable time.
But this is Oracle so the best answer to your questions is to recommend you not take anyone advice on this but rather run some tests with real data, in real-world volumes, with real-world DML and queries.

Query partition tables

hi all,
i want to query the partition tables which are more than 1GB in size?
how can i query?

Use the view DICT to query for the dictionary view which contains partition info.
Join that view with DBA_ or USER_SEGMENTS.
Generally speaking queries with respect to the contents of the dictionary are most easily resolved by consulting documentation or the views DICT, DICT_COLUMNS and DICT_COMMENTS, and doing so is also faster than asking here, as this is not a chatroom.
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

Joins query between itab and database table..

Hi all,
Is it posible to use joins query between internle table and data base table...

Hi Mehboob,
No thats impossible to join the internal table and the database table.
Alternatively what you need to do is you need to execute a Queryin Database Table and use the For All Entries in itab.
Eg: Select * from marc into table it_marc
for all entries in it_matnr
where matnr = it_matnr-matnr.
Thanks,
Chidanand

Query between in partition table

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for