Sizing columns in a big table

Hello,
This is something that is really driving me up the wall, if
you create a table with say 12 columns and you want the first 4 to
be say 100 pixels and rest to be 35. If you select the first 4 and
set them too 100 pixels then select the rest and set them to 35
what happens is the first 4
shrink and the very last column
expands but if you clikc in it Dreamweaver lies to you and
tells you it is the size you wanted
even though it is visibly too large why does this happen?
Is there a way to lock the first 4 then have the table resize
to the
right as it should do expanding the table width if
necessary? I am doing a site for a lighting manufacturer and they
have a lot of data tables and it really is making me quite angry
that I cannot get the column sizes to stop auto resizing everytime
I try to make a fwe columns the same size, why does it auto resize
all the columns???

Your whole approach to tables is flawed.
What is the width of the outer table?
What is the contents of the cells?
> why does it auto
> resize all the columns???
Because that's how HTML tables behave. They continuously
adjust to fit
their contents, no matter what your dimensions are.
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com
- Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/
- Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"MrFrisky330" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:e5mb78$j1v$[email protected]..
> Hello,
>
> This is something that is really driving me up the wall,
if you create a
> table
> with say 12 columns and you want the first 4 to be say
100 pixels and rest
> to
> be 35. If you select the first 4 and set them too 100
pixels then select
> the
> rest and set them to 35 what happens is the first 4
shrink and the
> very
> last column expands but if you clikc
in it Dreamweaver lies to you
> and
> tells you it is the size you wanted even though
it is visibly too
> large
> why does this happen?
>
> Is there a way to lock the first 4 then have the table
resize to the
> right as it should do expanding the
table width if necessary? I am
> doing
> a site for a lighting manufacturer and they have a lot
of data tables and
> it
> really is making me quite angry that I cannot get the
column sizes to stop
> auto
> resizing everytime I try to make a fwe columns the same
size, why does it
> auto
> resize all the columns???
>
>

Similar Messages

Find duplication values from multiple columns in a big table

Hi All,
I am working on a 11gR2 database in linux. i want to display record that have duplicate values in 2 columns.
1. Table Structure :-
CREATE TABLE A
ID NUMBER(10),
F_NAME VARCHAR2(100 BYTE),
L_NAME VARCHAR2(100 BYTE)
2. Sample Data:-
Insert into A
(ID, F_NAME, L_NAME) Values (1,'TONY' ,'SUMIT');
Insert into A
(ID, F_NAME, L_NAME) Values (2,'SUMIT' ,'KEITH');
Insert into A
(ID, F_NAME, L_NAME) Values (3,'NORA','SMITH');
Insert into A
(ID, F_NAME, L_NAME) Values (4,'APRIL','TONY');
Insert into A
(ID, F_NAME, L_NAME) Values (5,'ROSS','TAM');
ID F_NAME L_NAME
1 TONY SUMIT
2 SUMIT KEITH
3 NORA SMITH
4 APRIL TONY
5 ROSS TAM
4. My requirement is i need display IDs that it's F_NAME or L_NAME has duplication in F_NAME or L_NAME columns.
The result should be
ID
1 reason: F_NAME (TONY) equals to L_NAME of record 4, L_NAME (SUMIT) equals to F_NAME of record 2
2 reason: F_NAME (SUMIT) equals to L_NAME of record 1
4 reason: L_NAME (TONY) equals to F_NAME of record 1
record 3, 5 aren't in the result because there is no duplication in F_NAME or L_NAME columns for NORA,SMITH, ROSS, TAM
The table contains 10 million records, i really need to consider the performance.
kindly suggest me the solution

Note: Forum members please suggest better approach to this -- below.. convert into SQL :)
I know I will be opposed by many people in this forum for posting such in-efficient solution.
But trying to learn along with you.. its an interesting problem which must deal with all rows vs all rows to get all combinations.
But I am still thinking how to write it in SQL, probably will learn from this post after we receive some good SQL solution for the code what I am currently doing now.
step 1: created a table B similar to table A and added a column reason
CREATE TABLE B
ID      NUMBER(10),
F_NAME VARCHAR2(100 BYTE),
L_NAME VARCHAR2(100 BYTE),
REASON VARCHAR2(1000 BYTE) --- ADDED THIS
)Definetely inefficient :(
BEGIN
   FOR rec_outer IN (SELECT * FROM A) LOOP
      FOR rec_inner IN (SELECT * FROM A) LOOP
         IF (rec_outer.f_name = rec_inner.l_name) THEN
            UPDATE B
               SET reason =
                         rec_outer.id
                      || ' reason: F_NAME ('
                      || rec_outer.f_name
                      || ') equals to L_NAME of record '
                      || rec_inner.id
             WHERE b.id = rec_outer.id;
         END IF;
      END LOOP;
      FOR rec_inner IN (SELECT * FROM A) LOOP
         IF (rec_outer.l_name = rec_inner.f_name) THEN
            UPDATE B
               SET reason =
                      reason
                      || CASE
                            WHEN reason IS NULL THEN
                               rec_outer.id || ' reason: '
                            ELSE
                         END
                      || 'L_NAME ('
                      || rec_inner.f_name
                      || ') equals to F_NAME of record '
                      || rec_inner.id
             WHERE b.id = rec_outer.id;
         END IF;
      END LOOP;
   END LOOP;
   COMMIT;
EXCEPTION
   WHEN OTHERS THEN
      rollback;
      RAISE;
END;OUTPUT:
ID     F_NAME     L_NAME     REASON
1     TONY     SUMIT     1 reason: F_NAME (TONY) equals to L_NAME of record 4,L_NAME (SUMIT) equals to F_NAME of record 2
2     SUMIT     KEITH     2 reason: F_NAME (SUMIT) equals to L_NAME of record 1
3     NORA     SMITH
4     APRIL     TONY     4 reason: L_NAME (TONY) equals to F_NAME of record 1
5     ROSS     TAM     Cheers,
Manik.
Edited : Added rollback

Adding a new column to a big table is very slow

All,
I am trying to add a column to a table with defaul value as 0. The table has about 15M rows. The alter table statement is extermely slow.
I am using 11.1.0.7 on windows.
Thanks in advance

Please be careful when using this new 11g feature that can add columns to tables without updating each row. If you use a default value on a new not null column, update triggers that reference that column's :new value could have problems. There is a bug that has been around for at least 3 years that Oracle claims is "not a bug" that could cause problems in your triggers.
The issue is that triggers will still see null for the :new.column value even though it has a not null default. Even though you can select from the table and the results will show the default value, which it pulls from the data dictionary, the trigger cannot handle it. It appears to pull the value from the data block, not the data dictionary. So if it has never been updated, those two values will be out of synch. The fix, shown below, it to update each row.
For example, in 11.2.0.2:
1. Create a new table, insert one row, and add a new column (not null, with default value):
create table t (c1 number, c2 number);
insert into t values (1,1);
alter table t add (c3 number default 0 not null);Select from it and everything looks fine. The value for C3 is 0, my default. Perfect.
SQL> select * from t;
        C1         C2         C3
         1          1          0My new column C3 looks fine. Even though that row was never updated, my query pulled the default value of 0 from the data dictionary. Great!
But now add a simple trigger:
create or replace trigger t_bur_tr
before update on t for each row
begin
:new.c3 := :new.c3;
end;
/I am updating C1, one of my original columns. The trigger looks at the new value of C3 anyway, but because I am not updating it, it should equal its existing value. But this is what I get:
SQL> update t set c1 = 9999 where c1 = 1;
update t set c1 = 9999 where c1 = 1
ORA-01407: cannot update ("AMARTIN"."T"."C3") to NULL
SQL> The workaround is to update every row. (Defeating the purpose of the cool new 11g feature that can supposedly add columns without updating each row.)
SQL> update t set c3 = c3;
1 row updated
SQL> commit;
Commit complete
SQL> select * from t;
        C1         C2         C3
         1          1          0
SQL> update t set c1 = 9999 where c1 = 1;
1 row updated
SQL> select * from t;
        C1         C2         C3
      9999          1          0 Now it works as expected.
Just a heads-up on this unexpected feature. Not a bug? Sure looks like one to me.
Edit: Appears to be fixed in 11.2.0.3

Drop column in a big table.

Hi all,
I need to drop a column in a table (Oracle Version is 9iR2). This table contains approximately 2 000 000 000 records, each record is about 41 bytes length.
The column I need to drop represents un varchar(10), i.e. about 25% of a line size.
Because this operation is going to be very long, I would like to ask for the best way to proceed :
- should I previously set all values to null before the drop ?
- should I drop indexes on the table (there are 5 bitmap indexes but none on the column to drop).
- should I set some specific values to TEMP_TBS or UNDO_TBS before I proceed ?
- are there any other tips to know to achieve this goal ?
Thanks to all in advance.
Gael

user1368644 wrote:
Hi all,
I need to drop a column in a table (Oracle Version is 9iR2). This table contains approximately 2 000 000 000 records, each record is about 41 bytes length.
The column I need to drop represents un varchar(10), i.e. about 25% of a line size.
Because this operation is going to be very long, I would like to ask for the best way to proceed :
- should I previously set all values to null before the drop ?I can't see any reason to do that
- should I drop indexes on the table (there are 5 bitmap indexes but none on the column to drop).this should not be necessary if the indexes do not contain the column to be dropped
- should I set some specific values to TEMP_TBS or UNDO_TBS before I proceed ?Not sure.
- are there any other tips to know to achieve this goal ? There are actually a couple of ways do do this. You can drop the column in place, or cheat by copying the old table to a new one withouth the column. The sheer size of your table probably makes the second method impractical, not to mention having to recreate indexes, triggers, etc.

I am getting this error message for one of the columns in my big table:

FOR XML could not serialize the data for node 'NAME' because it contains a character (0x001A) which is not allowed in XML. To retrieve this data using FOR XML, convert it to binary, varbinary or image data type and use the BINARY BASE64 directive.

The message is fairly clear: it is simply the case that some characters are not permitted in XML.
Character 0x001A is 26 decimal and this is a control character and if you have this in a column called NAME there is something spooky with your data, and there is reason to investigate this:
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE charindex(NAME COLLATE Latin1_General_BIN2, char(26)) > 0
If you don't care, you can wrap the troublesome column replace:
replace(NAME NAME COLLATE Latin1_General_BIN2, char(26), '?')
The binary collation is required since char(26) is typically an undefined character in a Unicode non-binary collation and unexpected things happens.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, [email protected]

SAPSR3DB XMII_TRANSACTION table LOG column is very big

Hi,
We have a problem about MII server.
SAPSR3DB XMII_TRANSACTION table LOG column is very big data in it.
How can it be decrease the size of data in this column?
Regards.

In 12.1 its XMII Administration Menu (Menu.jsp) --> System Management --> DefaultTransactionPersistance.
In production I recommend setting this to 'ONERROR'
There is also the TransactionPersistenceLifetime which determines how long entries will stay in the log table.
We set this to 8 hours.

How to UPDATE a big table in Oracle via Bulk Load

Hi all,
in a datastore target as Oracle 11g, I have a big table having 300milions of record; the structure is One integer key + 10 columns attributes .
In IQ Source i have the same table with the same size ; the structure is One integer key + 1 column attributes .
What i need to do is to UPDATE that single field in Oracle from the values stored in IQ .
Any idea on how to organize efficiently the dataflow and the target writing mode ? bulk load ? api ?
thank you
Maurizio

Hi,
You cannot do bulk load when you need to UPDATE a field. Because all a bulk load does is add records to your table.
Since you have to UPDATE a field, i would suggest to go for SCD with
source > TC > MO > KG >target
Arun

Add a new column in Agreement Items table control (ME31K/ME32K/ME33K)

Hi guys,
I have a big issue.
How can I add a new column at Agreement Items table control (ME31K/ME32K/ME33K) level.
Thanks a lot.

I think i solved the problem . The single way to to that is to modify the SAP standard Screen.

How to set initial column widths for a table

What I'd like to do is to control the initial column widths for a table.
I'm building the table by using a class which extends AbstractTableModel. This class takes care of setting the headers and reading the data for the table.
If I do the following:
VarTableModel vtm = new VarTableModel(vi);
JTable jt = new JTable(vtm);
JScrollPane jsp = new JScrollPane(jt);
frame.getContentPane().add(jsp);
frame.setVisible(true);
I will see a table in my window. The widths of the columns are equal and are a function of the horizontal dimension of the window.
I have tried to set the width of a column by doing the following:
TableColumn aColumn;
aColumn = jt.getColumn(vtm.getColumnName(0));
aColumn.setWidth(40);
But this has no effect on what gets displayed. I can force the widths that I want by using 'setMaxWidth' but this has the unfortunate side effect of not allowing the user to make the column wider if they want.
What I'd like is a way to specify the widths of the columns when initially displayed and then let the user adjust to their liking.
I'm sure that there is a way to do this, but I don't seem to understand where to intervene in the process to produce the effect that I want.
Any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated!

Table.setAutoResizeMode(JTable.AUTO_RESIZE_OFF);
add this line and try ur codeThanks for the suggestion! Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to do the trick. Here is an abbreviated segment of my code:
vtm = new VarTableModel(vi);
JTable jt = new JTable(vtm);
// we want a horizontal scrollbar, so turn resizing off
// and we want to control column widths
jt.setAutoResizeMode(JTable.AUTO_RESIZE_OFF);
aColumn = jt.getColumn(vtm.getColumnName(0));
aColumn.setWidth(40);
. // same kind of thing for each column
aColumn = jt.getColumn(vtm.getColumnName(4));
aColumn.setWidth(400);
JScrollPane jsp = new JScrollPane(jt);
frame.getContentPane().add(jsp);
frame.setVisible(true);
If I do the above, the table gets displayed with each of the five columns the exact same width. So, the sizing of the columns is happening somewhere else despite turning auto resizing off.
Where is that occurring and how can I intervene so that I can control the widths of the columns on initial display and still allow the user to adjust the widths if they so choose?

Can we fix the column headers of a table placed in a scroll container?

Hi
I have a big table placed inside a scroll container.
The table is so big that both horizontal and vertical scroll bars appears always.
So what happens is...
     when the user moves the vertical scrollbar down, the column headers move
     up,so that they are no visible, when he reaches the bottom of the table.
What is our requirement is, even if the user moves the vertical scrollbars the headers should be visible.
Can anybody solve this problem??
Thanks
Smitha

hi Smitha,
    We cannot avoid that. but an alternate is that use another table above this table and which has the number of rows as zero. hide the table header for the below table. you need to adjust the header of above table so that it fits for the below table.
This works fine if the table doesn't have sorter facility.
Regards,
Gopi

Managing a big table

Hi All,
I have a big table in my database. When I say big, it is related to data stored in it (around 70 million recs) and also no of columns (425).
I do not have any problems with it now, but going ahead I assume, it would be a bottleneck or very difficult to manage this table.
I have a star schema for the application of which this is a master table.
Apart from partitioning the table is there any other way of better handling such a table.
Regards

Hi,
Usually the fact tables tend to be smaller in number of columns and larger in number of records while the dimension tables obey to the opposite larger number of columns, which is were the powerful of the dimension lays on, and very few (in some exceptions even millions of record) records. So the high number of columns make me thing that the fact table may be, only may be, I don't have enough information, improperly designed. If that is the case then you may want to revisit that design and most likely you will find some 'facts' in your fact table that can become attributes of any of the dimension tables linked to.
Can you say why are you adding new columns to the fact table? A fact table is created for a specific business process and if done properly there shouldn't be such a requirement of adding new columns. A fact use to be limited in the number of metrics you can take from it. In fact, it is more common the oposite, a factless fact table.
In any case, from the point of view of handling this large table with so many columns I would say that you have to focus on avoiding the increasing number of columns. There is nothing in the database itself, such as partitioning that could do this for you. So one option is to figure out which columns you want to get 'vertical partition' and split the table in at least two new tables. The set of columns will be those that are more frequently used or those that are more critical to you.Then you will have to link these two tables together and with the rest of dimensions. But, again if you are adding new columns then is just a matter of time that you will be running in the same situation in the future.
I am sorry but cannot offer better advice than to revisit the design of your fact table. For doing that you may want to have a look at http://www.kimballgroup.com/html/designtips.html
LW

Max(serial_no) on a big table

Hello Gurus,
I am using max(serial_no) on a big table
how to get performance of such query
SELECT MAX(SERIAL_NO) FROM DOCUMENTS agr WHERE STATUS NOT IN ('A', 'NA');
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 8 | 5250 |
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | 8 | |
| 2 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | DOCUMENTS | 846K| 6613K| 5250 |
No index onn STATUS column
thanks in advance

NOT IN does not consider index.I wouldn't say so generally
SQL> explain plan
 for
 select max (empno)
 from emp
 where empno not in
 (7369,
 7499,
 7521,
 7566,
 7654,
 7698,
 7782,
 7788,
 7839,
 7844,
 7876,
 7900)
Explain complete.
SQL> select * from table (dbms_xplan.display ())
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Plan hash value: 1767367665
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 4 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | 4 | | |
| 2 | FIRST ROW | | 1 | 4 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 3 | INDEX FULL SCAN (MIN/MAX)| PK_EMP | 1 | 4 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
 3 - filter("EMPNO"<>7369 AND "EMPNO"<>7499 AND "EMPNO"<>7521 AND
 "EMPNO"<>7566 AND "EMPNO"<>7654 AND "EMPNO"<>7698 AND "EMPNO"<>7782 AND
 "EMPNO"<>7788 AND "EMPNO"<>7839 AND "EMPNO"<>7844 AND "EMPNO"<>7876 AND
 "EMPNO"<>7900)
18 rows selected.

Very Big Table (36 Indexes, 1000000 Records)

Hi
I have a very big table (76 columns, 1000000 records), these 76 columns include 36 foreign key columns , each FK has an index on the table, and only one of these FK columns has a value at the same time while all other FK have NULL value. All these FK columns are of type NUMBER(20,0).
I am facing performance problem which I want to resolve taking in consideration that this table is used with DML (Insert,Update,Delete) along with Query (Select) operations, all these operations and queries are done daily. I want to improve this table performance , and I am facing these scenarios:
1- Replace all these 36 FK columns with 2 columns (ID, TABLE_NAME) (ID for master table ID value, and TABLE_NAME for master table name) and create only one index on these 2 columns.
2- partition the table using its YEAR column, keep all FK columns but drop all indexes on these columns.
3- partition the table using its YEAR column, and drop all FK columns, create (ID,TABLE_NAME) columns, and create index on (TABLE_NAME,YEAR) columns.
Which way has more efficiency?
Do I have to take "master-detail" relations in mind when building Forms on this table?
Are there any other suggestions?
I am using Oracle 8.1.7 database.
Please Help.

Hi everybody
I would like to thank you for your cooperation and I will try to answer your questions, but please note that I am a developer in the first place and I am new to oracle database administration, so please forgive me if I did any mistakes.
Q: Have you gathered statistics on the tables in your database?
A: No I did not. And if I must do it, must I do it for all database tables or only for this big table?
Q:Actually tracing the session with 10046 level 8 will give some clear idea on where your query is waiting.
A: Actually I do not know what you mean by "10046 level 8".
Q: what OS and what kind of server (hardware) are you using
A: I am using Windows2000 Server operating system, my server has 2 Intel XEON 500MHz + 2.5GB RAM + 4 * 36GB Hard Disks(on RAID 5 controller).
Q: how many concurrent user do you have an how many transactions per hour
A: I have 40 concurrent users, and an average 100 transaction per hour, but the peak can goes to 1000 transaction per hour.
Q: How fast should your queries be executed
A: I want the queries be executed in about 10 to 15 seconds, or else every body here will complain. Please note that because of this table is highly used, there is a very good chance to 2 or more transaction to exist at the same time, one of them perform query, and the other perform DML operation. Some of these queries are used in reports, and it can be long query(ex. retrieve the summary of 50000 records).
Q:please show use the explain plan of these queries
A: If I understand your question, you ask me to show you the explain plan of those queries, well, first, I do not know how , an second, I think it is a big question because I can not collect all kind of queries that have been written on this table (some of them exist in server packages, and the others performed by Forms or Reports).

Extract big table to a delimited file

Hi Gurus,
A big table of size more than 4 GB from 10g DB needed to be extracted/exported into a text file,
the column delimiter is "&|" and row delimiter is "$#".
I cannot do it from TOAD as it is hanging while extraction of big table.
Any suggestion will be highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

>
A big table of size more than 4 GB from 10g DB needed to be extracted/exported into a text file,
the column delimiter is "&|" and row delimiter is "$#".
I cannot do it from TOAD as it is hanging while extraction of big table.
Any suggestion will be highly appreciated.
>
You will need to write your own code to do the unload.
One possibility is to write a simple Java program and use JDBC to unload the data. This will let you unload the data to any client you run the app on.
The other advantage of using Java for this is that you can easily ZIP the data as you unload it and use substantially less storage for the resulting file.
See The Java Tutorials for simple examples of querying an Oracle DB and processing the result set.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/jdbc/overview/index.html
Another possibility is to use UTL_FILE. There are plenty of examples in the SQL and PL/SQL forum if you search for them.
There is also a FAQ for 'How do I read of write an Excel file (note - this also includes delimited files).
SQL and PL/SQL FAQ

Update a column of a large table

I have a table containing 33.430.648 records. I need to add a column of varchar2(1) data type with a default 'N' specification. Which is the best method to add this column? It takes very much time if i issue:
alter table my_Table add my_column varchar2(1) default 'N'.
Instead of this i can simply add the column and then perform a bulk update to 'N' value for that column, and then adding that default 'N'... but i'm asking for a solution to speed up this operation.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
Edited by: Roger22 on 28.09.2011 15:07

1. you have big table A(col1, col2)
2. you need big table A(col1, col2, col3) where col3 = 'N'
solution
1. rename A to A_TMP
2. create table A as select col1, col2, 'N' as col3 from A_TMP
3. recreate all index and constraints and triggers in parallel mode if possible.
4. drop table A_TMP

Sizing columns in a big table

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for