Question on partition

Hi All -
We're experiencing a situation where we don't get any value while retrieving data using transparent partition and attribute dimension. Let's say, I've source BSO app (SrcApp) and target BSO app (TgtApp) in system 11.1.1. TgtApp doesn't contain any data. We have several attribute dimensions and they are not part of the partition definition. However, when we retrieve data from TgtApp (without using attribute dimension in excel sheet), we get data from the partition. But as soon as we use any attribute dimension in excel, all the results display 0. The same excel sheet with attribute dimension used to retrieve directly from SrcApp produces valid data.
So, can you pls help us finding the issue here? The transparent partition is defined as @IDESC of all the dimensions.
Also, as far my undesratnding, essbase gets the data from source app SrcApp however it does the calc on the taget TgtApp outline. For example, in our above case, the (on-the-fly) dynamic attribute calc should be happening on TgtApp outline. It makes me think that the partition is fine because we get the data from partition without using attribute dimension, we have some issue with the attribute assignment in our target TgtApp app. Is this a correct statement?
Thanks much for your help!!

Hi,
First fact of life is, Oracle's partitioning is based on column (lets worry about hash partitioning later, which is not useful in your case anyway).
Now, you have to fit your partitioning need to what Oracle has provided. And Oracle has provided a lot.
Out of range, list and hash partitioning, I think, you need to use range partitioning.
Is it possible for you to create a virtual column (11g)? you can base your partition on the virtual column.
You have to have a column (or combination of columns) on which you can base your partition.
Regards

Similar Messages

Question on Partitioning

Dear All
I have following questions on partitioning
1. Is it useful for improving performance of INSERTS ?
2. When u have say list partitioning of 1, 2,.....10 and a default partition.
Lets say the partition key is 11 always goes to Default partition
WHat will happen to existing ROWS if I add a new partition for key 11
Also what will happen to new ROWS of key 11
3. When should I create global indexes and local indexes ?
Thanx in advance
Aaash

This forum is not a substitute for taking a class or reading the docs.
http://tahiti.oracle.com

Few questions about partitioning and formatting in Windows 8

Hello,
I'm very shortly after a Windows 8 reinstall and I want to make use of this moment to finally understand partitioning and formatting in Windows 8.
Before using Windows 8, I was an XP user for 5 years and I actually never bothered myself with formatting my main system partition, that's probably why my computer ended up working like a slime for the last years. Anyway, by now I have been using Windows 8 for a year.
Three weeks ago I faced a system-related problem with my laptop (IdeaPad Y580) which prevented it from peacefully shutting down. A good friend of mine (XP user for his entire life, and now Windows 7 newbie user) told me, that I should keep all my non-system stuff on separate partition and that I should do the main system partition format from time to time to keep my PC out of trouble. It is sure that he took his knowledge from using XP, and here's my first question - does this method apply to Windows 8?
I mean as far as I know, back then, in XP, partitioning was possible only during Windows installation, and now, in Windows 8 we have a Disk Management for this, which do not require running Windows installation to create new partitions.
I'm mentioning this due to the fact that originally (I mean by factory settings) my drive has only one visible partition - C: (1TB), so I would need to use the Disk Management to take some space from C: partition and allocate it to the new D: partition.
In case I do this whole partitioning operation and create a D: partition, is it sure that formatting my system-only C: partition won't have effects on my D: partition, and all the programms and data I have here will stay on their places and work after format? (I'm worried about this because I've seen in some partitioning guide a warning not to format the main partition after the partitioning operation, because it would erase totally all data - I'm not sure if I misunderstood something or is it a mistake? EDIT: here's the link for this guide, just jump to the "Final Thoughts" section to see what I'm taking about: http://www.technorms.com/8438/windows-8-create-hard-drive-partition ).
If this whole method of keeping your system running fine doesn't apply to Windows 8, I guess I'm okay with having only one C: partition.
By the way, it doesn't matter for me if I create new partition in terms of conflicts with preinstalled Lenovo OneKey Recovery, since I had to reinstall my Windows 8 recently from non-Lenovo CD, and either way my laptop is now totally clean, without Lenovo stuff (I found Lenovo Recovery CD for Y580 on the internet, but it had non-single-language Windows 8 in it, and I needed a single-laguage one in order to have my Product Key recognised, so I just used a pure Windows 8 SL installer)

I just found out that I can't even transfer my Users folder or Program Data to other drive than the one with the system, because it would prevent me from updating my system or even from actually booting to my system. So apparently my whole topic is for nothing... I guess I should live with only one drive, and whenever my system totally crashes again I should do the backups to my external HDD. It's sad though that Windows 8 is a total opposite to user-friendly OS, to say the least.

Questions Re: Partitioning External Hard Drive

I need to free up some space on my MacBook Pro, but first I need to reorganize my external hard drive. It's presently divided into five partitions, as follows:
Mac - Mac OS (Extended Journaled) - 100 GB
Mac 2 - Mac OS (Extended Journaled) - 115.76 GB
Media - Mac OS Extended - 100 GB
Websites - Mac OS Extended - 50 GB
PC - MS-DOS (FAT) - 100 GB
I use the first two for cloning my hard drive, the next two for storing images, videos and websites, and the last one is reserved for files I copied from the PC I abandoned when I bought my Mac.
In fact, the last partition (PC) has about 80 GB available, so I'd like to take 75 GB and redistribute it. I'd like to wind up with something like this:
Mac - 100
Mac 2 - 145
Media - 150
Websites - 50
PC - 25
In other words, I want to add more capacity to the partitions Mac 2 and Media.
First question: Is there a way to shrink PC from 100 GB to 25 GB without erasing the data it contains, then expand Mac 2 and Media without destroying the data they contain?
If not, there's another possible solution. My last attempt to clone my hard drive failed, so I erased Mac 2; it's empty.
So could I reformat it as MS-DOS, resize it to 25 GB, then copy all my files from PC to Mac 2, then either reformat and enlarge PC or delete it and create a new partition?
When I open Disk Utilties and click on my external hard drive, I can then click on each partition and see its stats. But I don't see any way to resize any particular partition. At the top of the panel it says Volume Scheme, below which it lists Current, followed by other partition schemes (3, 4, 5, etc.). However, I assume that clicking any of these would erase all my data.
So can anyone suggest a way to reorganize my external hard drive without losing all my data?
Thanks.

All the commands remain grayed out when I click on various partitions. Maybe it's because I'm actually booted up on my external hard drive. I deleted several GB of files from my internal hard drive, but it still won't boot up. So it looks like I have a technical problem, and I'll have to visit my local Apple store. After I get it fixed, I'll take another look at re-partitioning my external hard drive.
Thanks.

Partitioning Question - range partition?

Hello all
we have an issue with the amount of data we have in a particular schema that we are using to store production metrics. I have looked at a few options and are now trying to design a solution using partitioning. At a very high level we have data in 7 tables that need to utilise partitioning:
JOBS
FILES
MAILPIECES
MAILPIECE_DETAILS
TNT_DATA
BAGFILES
POSTAL_BAGS
Ideally I would like to use a RANGE partition as I can fairly easily use a date as the range - my issue here though is that only the FILES table has a DATE column on it.
So my question is, for the other tables, is it best practice to use the same 'sort of' partitions - in which case I would need to add a DATE column to each subsequent table and populate it correctly (based on the date in the FILES table - as the FILES table is acting as the PARENT table for all the other tables). Or, should each table be treated individually and partitioned using whatever method is appropriate for that table?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
Paul

Hi,
if you are running 11g and all other tables are indeed children to FILES then consider reference partitioning.

[Solved]Question about partitioning

Hi!
I`ve installed Arch, but made a bit of mistake when partitioning my HDD. I`ve made 4 primary partitions: swap, /, /var and /home. Now i`ve got ~200Ggb of free space left on my HDD, but i can`t create a partition, since the primary partition limit is reached. So i thought of deleting the /var partition ( only 7Ggb ), creating the extended partition on those 200Ggb, and creating three partitions there: two for my own needs and a /var partition. My question is: will Arch recognize the /var partition on the extended one as his own? Or will i mess things up?
Thanks in advance.
Last edited by K0tuk (2009-05-03 16:38:25)

K0tuk wrote:
Hi!
I`ve installed Arch, but made a bit of mistake when partitioning my HDD. I`ve made 4 primary partitions: swap, /, /var and /home. Now i`ve got ~200Ggb of free space left on my HDD, but i can`t create a partition, since the primary partition limit is reached. So i thought of deleting the /var partition ( only 7Ggb ),
why don't you simply extend your home partition with gparted?
K0tuk wrote:creating the extended partition on those 200Ggb, and creating three partitions there: two for my own needs and a /var partition. My question is: will Arch recognize the /var partition on the extended one as his own?
sure, if you make an entry in /etc/fstab. afaik, there is no user noticeable difference between primary/extended partitions (the differences are only of technical nature, eg you cannot make a extended swap partition).
wikipedia knows it all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_partitioning
vlad

Three questions on Partitioning

11.2.0.3 on Solaris 10
Question 1.
For RANGE partitioning or LIST partitioning or a composite of RANGE and LIST partitioning is it recommended to have global Indexes ?
Question 2.
For the below table we have created an index named IDX_NVH_CRTN_CLT_DTL_P as shown below in the CREATE INDEX statement.
This is called "Local index" because for each table partition an Index segment will be created. Right?
Question 3.
In table's DDL (extracted using Toad) , I can see that the first partition is user defined because of its naming (NVH_CRTN_CLT_DTL_P1 ) . The next partition names seems to system generated names like SYS_ . Why is that ?
-- Table with Range partitioning based on Month_id Column
create table NVH_CRTN_CLT_DTL_P
month_id                 NUMBER(6),
client_id                VARCHAR2(400 CHAR),
client_subprofile_id     NUMBER(15),
client_mgmt_country_code VARCHAR2(5 CHAR),
product_area_code        VARCHAR2(25 CHAR),
rolling_rvn_amt          NUMBER(20,10),
avg_rwa_amt              NUMBER(20,10),
group_id                 VARCHAR2(25 CHAR),
csb_id                   VARCHAR2(400 CHAR),
nvh_rgn_cde              VARCHAR2(8 CHAR)
partition by range (MONTH_ID)
partition NVH_CRTN_CLT_DTL_P1 values less than (201101)
    tablespace WMNH_TBS
    pctfree 10
    initrans 1
    maxtrans 255
    storage
      initial 64K
      next 1M
      minextents 1
      maxextents unlimited
partition SYS_P4592 values less than (201102)
    tablespace WMNH_TBS
    pctfree 10
    initrans 1
    maxtrans 255
    storage
      initial 64K
      next 1M
      minextents 1
      maxextents unlimited
partition SYS_P4590 values less than (201103)
    tablespace WMNH_TBS
    pctfree 10
    initrans 1
    maxtrans 255
    storage
      initial 64K
      next 1M
      minextents 1
      maxextents unlimited
--- Index is based on MONTH_ID and GROUP_ID columns
create index IDX_NVH_CRTN_CLT_DTL_P on NVH_CRTN_CLT_DTL_P (MONTH_ID, GROUP_ID) local;

>
Question 1.
For RANGE partitioning or LIST partitioning or a composite of RANGE and LIST partitioning is it recommended to have global Indexes ?
>
Contrary to previous advice global indexes can be used for all table types, not just RANGE.
You should review the VLDB and Partitioning Guide for information about global and local indexes
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b32024/partition.htm
See the Overview of Partitioned Indexes and the Local Partitioned Indexes sections
>
Question 2.
For the below table we have created an index named IDX_NVH_CRTN_CLT_DTL_P as shown below in the CREATE INDEX statement.
This is called "Local index" because for each table partition an Index segment will be created. Right?
>
Yes - this is explained in the Local Partitioned Indexes section I referred to above
>
Local partitioned indexes are easier to manage than other types of partitioned indexes. They also offer greater availability and are common in DSS environments. The reason for this is equipartitioning: each partition of a local index is associated with exactly one partition of the table. This enables Oracle to automatically keep the index partitions in sync with the table partitions, and makes each table-index pair independent. Any actions that make one partition's data invalid or unavailable only affect a single partition.
Local partitioned indexes support more availability when there are partition or subpartition maintenance operations on the table. A type of index called a local nonprefixed index is very useful for historical databases. In this type of index, the partitioning is not on the left prefix of the index columns.
>
Note the 'equipartition' mentioned in the third sentence: one table partition => one index partition
>
Question 3.
In table's DDL (extracted using Toad) , I can see that the first partition is user defined because of its naming (NVH_CRTN_CLT_DTL_P1 ) . The next partition names seems to system generated names like SYS_ . Why is that ?
>
If you create a partitioned table and do not provide names for some or all of the partitions they will be given system-generated names. If you split a partition and don't name the new partition it will also be given a system-generated name.
Odds are that your table was created using code similar to this example
create table NVH_CRTN_CLT_DTL_P
month_id                 NUMBER(6),
client_id                VARCHAR2(400 CHAR),
client_subprofile_id     NUMBER(15),
client_mgmt_country_code VARCHAR2(5 CHAR),
product_area_code        VARCHAR2(25 CHAR),
rolling_rvn_amt          NUMBER(20,10),
avg_rwa_amt              NUMBER(20,10),
group_id                 VARCHAR2(25 CHAR),
csb_id                   VARCHAR2(400 CHAR),
nvh_rgn_cde              VARCHAR2(8 CHAR)
partition by range (MONTH_ID)
partition NVH_CRTN_CLT_DTL_P1 values less than (201101),
partition values less than (201102),
partition values less than (201103)
)Note that the last two partition clauses do not provide names so, on my system, they were named SYS_P910 and SYS_P911

Questions about partitioning

Hey everyone,
I'm currently in the process of backing up my data, in order to completely redo my partitioning scheme. Right now I have the following scheme, ordered by their place in the disk:
/dev/sda5 -> 4 GB swap
/dev/sda7 -> 30 GB ext4 / for Linux 1
/dev/sda8 -> 30 GB ext4 / for Linux 2
/dev/sda6 -> the rest of the 500 GB disk, ext4 /home for both
I wanted to redo it to something like this:
/dev/sda5 -> 1 GB ext2, /boot
/dev/sda6 -> 4 GB swap
/dev/sda7 -> 200 GB ext4, to be mounted under /mnt/Files, and symlinked to ~/Documents, Music, etc.
/dev/sda8, sda9, sda10, etc. -> rest of the disk, ext4 / for various Linux and possibly BSD distros.
Is something like this correct and optimized? I see a lot of places recommending having a separate /boot partition, I'm going to give it a try. ext2 seems to be well regarded in this aspect, would I gain anything from making it ext4? Is 1 GB too large?
Regarding the order on the disk, should I have it like that, or maybe /boot, then /mnt/Files, then swap, then the OSs? What is a generally good order for this sort of stuff?
Cheers
EDIT: Forgot to mention: the layout posted above would all be on an extended partition, on /dev/sda1. Would I gain anything if I made any ot the partitions primary?
EDIT2: Also, should I look into LVM? Would it interest me?
Last edited by Blackened Justice (2012-02-14 01:03:51)

Hmm, I guess I planned on having a swap because it's customary, I thought it was pretty much standard I have 3 GB of RAM, and it does sometimes get a bit too filled up when I run certain VMs.
A question: Just how exactly would I have several distributions running from the same /boot? I have some knowledge of playing with grub's menu.lst, making it point to different kernels and such, but I've never tried to have different distros on the same /boot... Would I just rename the initramfs-linux.img, initramfs-linux-fallback.img and vmlinuz-linux to something different, and then adjust menu.lst accordingly? How about running different distros from the same kernel?

Questions re: Partitioning HD for OSX & OS9x

I have a Beige G3, MT, 300mhz, rev.1, with an 4GB Ultra SCSI Quantum Viking WSE that is basically a goner now. I bought a Seagate Ultra ATA/100 7200 RPM 160GB hard drive to replace it, and need a little advice about how to partition it. (bought the 160GB before I learned that, as an internal drive, my Beige will only see about 127GB - oh well, live and learn....).
For a while I need to continue to use OS9 for quite a few Apps & external devices. Also, I do a lot of graphic & web work so there's a lot of revising of files going on on my machine.
After browsing through the posts here, I still have some questions:
Q. Since my computer will only be seeing 127GBs out of 160, what happens to the rest of the "unseen" 33GBs? If, for instance, I format this drive today and then get a controller card or move it to a FW case later, what happens with the previously "unseen" GBs? Do they just get added on to the last partition? Will I have to reformat the whole drive again?
Q. Is it a good or bad idea to put the OS9 Classic system folder on a separate partition from OSX? What would be the pros or cons with this? (I plan on mostly using the regular OS9x on a separate partition for a lot of my Apps and such to avoid the conflicts with Classic that I've heard about, and until I get all my software & devices upgraded to OSX).
Q. I read some posts where some people don't think partitioning is a good idea, but since it looks like I'm going to have to do it anyway in order to install Tiger, I figured I would probably go ahead and partition the rest of the drive The list below might look like over-kill, but from what I've read, this type of set-up seems to minimize and confine disk fragmentation & corruption which seems to me to be a plus - any cons to this?
Q. Also, does this order of partitioning seem ok? (I came up with this configuration after reading some info at these sites: http://www.sciencequest.org/support/computers/mac/topics/partitioning.html and http://www.themacintoshguy.com/mactips/archive/tip11.shtml
Partition 1: 7.95GB - OSX (Tiger)
Partition 2: 10GB - Scratch Disk (for Photoshop scratch disk, scanner captures, burning CDs, downloading, browser cache, etc. - in essence, no files reside here).
Partition 3: 5GB - OS9x (original)
Partition 4: 5GB - OS9x Classic
Partition 5: 10GB - Temp/Work area (Unlike the "Scratch" partition, files/projects may reside until completed)
Partition 6: 50GB - Docs & Resource Library
Partition 7: 5GB - Email
Partition 8: 20GB - Apps
Partition 9: 7.95GB - Emergency OSX system, & OSX repair utilities (Disk Warrior, & Drive Genius).
Partition 10: 5GB - Emergency OS9 system, & OS9 repair utilities, (DW & Norton).
All recommendations, opinions and tips are greatly appreciated.
~Kathleen
Beige G3, MT, 300mhz, rev.1, model #M6572LLA,Ultra SCSI Quantum Viking 4.5 WSE Mac OS 9.2.x RAM=640MB, Apple53C875 SCSI Card, USB card, FW card, ATI mach64_3DU Display card

Kathleen:
The tech forum in the ExPostFacto site (http://forum.macsales.com/) has a number of extensive discussions about partitioning and recommendations. I suggest you look there for additional discussion by people with far more expertise than me.
I do remember a couple of points from my reading in that forum.
1) If things go awry in an attempted EPF installation, under certain conditions it can alter or cause problems in the System 9 being used at the time. Having a separate partition for a duolicate System 9 for EPF to use would protect your regular working system in the event of such a mishap.
I believe one recommendation indicated you could just drag and drop your existing System 9 from your internal drive onto a new partition, even on an external drive, in order to create such a separate System for EPF use.
2) You may wish to have a separate System 9 partition for use as a helper disk for EPF to use.
3) You may wish to have a separate System 9 partition to use for System X to designate as a classic environment.
4) You may wish other partitions for applications, data/documents, etc.
As I recall, most of the detailed recommendations (I believe I saw at least 3 different such messages during my travels at that site) included a first partition of >8GB for System X, two other separate partitions (several GB) for System 9, one for desigantion as classic mode under System X, the other for use by EPF in installing and also (if necessary) as a helper disk.
If I have recapitulated this information incorrectly I trust others will set you straight. In any event, I recommend you take a close look at the EPF tech forums - a search for partitioning should yield rapid results of very helpful information. Hope this helps - Good luck!
G3 Beige mini tower Mac OS 9.1.x Sonnet G4 800MHz upgrade; 640 MB RAM

[SOLVED] A few questions about partitions

Hi,
I'm using Windows XP as my primary OS atm. Last year I installed Linux Mint and got it working nicely along with XP, but now I want to try Arch. I have two hard disks - a 320GB SATA2 one and a secondary 80GB IDE one. I've separated about 50GB of the largest for Mint, and I'd like to use these for Arch. Thing is, I'm not sure how I partitioned my HD (I think Mint automated most of it) and I'm scared that I'll screw up. I ran fdisk -l with the Arch CD as suggested by the Beginner's Guide, and here's more or less what I got:
Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdb1 * 1 32059 257513886 7 HPFS/NTFS
/dev/sdb2 32060 38913 55054755 5 Extended
/dev/sdb5 32060 38627 52757428+ 83 Linux
/dev/sdb6 38628 38913 2297263+ 82 Linux swap/solaris
A few questions:
-> I assume sdb1 is where Windows is, and sdb2, 5 and 6 are Mint's. Is that correct? Why are there no sdb3 and 4?
-> If I understand it correctly, hdX means a partition in an IDE disk, and sdX means one in a SATA disk. Is that right? If so, why don't I have an hda (which would be the 80GB HD) partition, and why do I have sdbs instead of sdas?
-> When installing Arch, should I delete Mint's partitions and make new ones, or use the ones it already created?
-> If I decide to start using Arch as my primary OS in the future, will it be possible to resize its home partition?
Thank you very much and sorry for my cluelessness.
Last edited by Caio (2009-07-05 20:26:29)

Caio wrote:
Hi,
I'm using Windows XP as my primary OS atm. Last year I installed Linux Mint and got it working nicely along with XP, but now I want to try Arch. I have two hard disks - a 320GB SATA2 one and a secondary 80GB IDE one. I've separated about 50GB of the largest for Mint, and I'd like to use these for Arch. Thing is, I'm not sure how I partitioned my HD (I think Mint automated most of it) and I'm scared that I'll screw up. I ran fdisk -l with the Arch CD as suggested by the Beginner's Guide, and here's more or less what I got:
Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdb1 * 1 32059 257513886 7 HPFS/NTFS
/dev/sdb2 32060 38913 55054755 5 Extended
/dev/sdb5 32060 38627 52757428+ 83 Linux
/dev/sdb6 38628 38913 2297263+ 82 Linux swap/solaris
A few questions:
Caio wrote:-> I assume sdb1 is where Windows is, and sdb2, 5 and 6 are Mint's. Is that correct? Why are there no sdb3 and 4?
My guess is because you made the second partion extended. normally 1,2,3,4 will be primary or one will be marked extended. It probably skipped 3 and 4 since you didn't create anymore primary partitions.
Caio wrote:-> If I understand it correctly, hdX means a partition in an IDE disk, and sdX means one in a SATA disk. Is that right? If so, why don't I have an hda (which would be the 80GB HD) partition, and why do I have sdbs instead of sdas?
With the new libata driver they all show up as sd?, so no this rule isn't correct.
Caio wrote:-> When installing Arch, should I delete Mint's partitions and make new ones, or use the ones it already created?
I would reformat the partitions, but if they are how you want them then you should just leave the partition table untouched. By reformat them I mean recreate the filesystem.
Caio wrote:
-> If I decide to start using Arch as my primary OS in the future, will it be possible to resize its home partition?
Thank you very much and sorry for my cluelessness.
It looks like you do not have a separate home partition. My guess is you have your windows partition, the extended, and then that is broken into one large partition for / and then swap at the end.
Edit: Oh I should have pointed out, normally arch creates a separate /home partition, if you want this you will have to restructure your extended partitions. This isn't necessary though, it's a preferance thing, there pros/cons to going either route.
Last edited by Zepp (2009-07-05 14:53:58)

Qosmio X500/02 - Question about partition

Hello Forum,
I have a just purchased a Qosmio X500/02 notebook and have noticed on one of the HDD, a partition having the specs. of
NTFS (System) Pri. Act. and a size of 1.465 GB.
Is this partition created in order to use the built-in backup and restore utility?
Regards JohnBoy_Oz

Hi buddy,
Normally you have at least two partitions on your notebook. The first partition contains the Windows installation from Toshiba with all drivers and tools.
The second partition contains a folder called HDDrecovery. These files are necessary for HDD recovery option to restore factory settings on your notebook.
Usually the first partition is called WINDOWS and the second one Data.
Does the partition that you mean contain a folder called HDDrecovery or not?
As Jeka wrote, create the Toshiba recovery disk as fast as possible. It can restore factory settings all the time.

Questioning about Partitioning a new Internal Hard Drive

I just bought a new Internal Hard Drive, Western Digital Caviar, 500 GB. I am trying to Partition the Drive but, there is a pull down menu which I am not sure what to select.
On "Volume Scheme, I selected 1 Partition from the menu, BUT, what do I select on "Format"?
It gives me these options:
1. Mac OS Extended (journaled)
2. Mac OS Extended
3. Mac OS Extended (case sensitive, Journaled)
4. Mac OS Extended (case sensitive)
5. Mac OS Extended
Free-Space
I am not sure what to choose here, IF I have to chose anything. All I need is another HD where I will have music samples on it.
Any help would be appreciate it.

For normal purposes, use Mac OS Extended (journaled)

A question about partition.

Dear All,
I am working with transparent partition recently. And I face a problem now.
There are three blocks in both source and target database, and I want to aggregate two of the source data to the target.
i.e.
SA----------->TA
SB+SC------>TB
void---------->TC
Is this possible? If not, is there any suggestion about the situation? Thanks!
Best Regards,
Martin

Hello Jennifer,
each partition will holds its own subset of data, there is no redundant / mirrored data.
Data is distributed via a hash algorithm

Noob question. Partition 45gb what happened to it all?

I apologize if this has been answered before but I couldn't find it in the search. Using newest model MacBook with pre-installed Leopard, installed WinXP SP2 without a hitch using 45gb partition for windows side (NTFS obviously). Problem is that in the C drive in the Windows side, only 5.85 capacity and it is nearly reached. What might have happened to all of the rest of the 45gb and is there a way to allocate it to drive C?
Thanks in advance to the resident genius who can guide me through this!

did anything stuff up during partitioning the drive?
have you installed the mac dvd drivers?
if nothing out of the ordinary has occured, and you don't mind a tedious approach, try removing the partition with bootcamp assistant, and then redo-ing the process again. See if the same thing happens.

Question about the partition index

Hi, all, I have some questions about partitioned index.
And I get from oracle documents that oracle's partition index can be clarified as local partition index and global partition index.
And local partition index can be clarified as prefix local partition index and non-prefix local partition index. And I also the word "global prefix partition index".
But, I can not get what the exact meaning after I consulted many documents and notes from website.
Can anyone give me one example to cover these topic?
You help is very thankful!
Thanks and best regards!

Hi,
Local index search by partition.
Local Indexes: A local index is an index on a partitioned table which is partitioned in the exact same manner as the underlying partitioned table. Each partition of a local index corresponds to one and only one partition of the underlying table.
Global Partitioned Indexes: A global partitioned index is an index on a partitioned or non-partitioned table which is partitioned using a different partitioning-key from the table. Global-partitioned indexes can only be partitioned using range partitioning. For example, a table could be range-partitioned by month and have twelve partitions, while an index on that table could be range-partitioned using a different partitioning key and have a different number of partitions.
Global Non-Partitioned Indexes: A global non-partitioned index is essentially identical to an index on a non-partitioned table. The index structure is not partitioned.
Maybe this links help you:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/oracle9i/datasheets/partitioning.html
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p=4950:8:12026637104196321871::NO::F4950_P8_DISPLAYID,F4950_P8_CRITERIA:678824574412
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p=4950:8:::::F4950_P8_DISPLAYID:1612281449571
Cheers

Question on partition

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for