Tables without unique index

Hi,
I am getting following warnings in db02:
Tables without unique index
STATS_RFC
STATS_RFC_OLD.
In se16 the status sows Table STATS_RFC_OLD\ STATS_RFC is not active in the Dictionary. In se11 does not exist.
Kindly suggest.
Regards,
Rahul.

HI,
desc SAPR3P.STATS_RFC
Name                                      Null?    Type
STATID                                             VARCHAR2(30)
TYPE                                               CHAR(1)
VERSION                                            NUMBER
FLAGS                                              NUMBER
C1                                                 VARCHAR2(30)
C2                                                 VARCHAR2(30)
C3                                                 VARCHAR2(30)
C4                                                 VARCHAR2(30)
C5                                                 VARCHAR2(30)
N1                                                 NUMBER
N2                                                 NUMBER
N3                                                 NUMBER
N4                                                 NUMBER
N5                                                 NUMBER
N6                                                 NUMBER
N7                                                 NUMBER
N8                                                 NUMBER
N9                                                 NUMBER
N10                                                NUMBER
N11                                                NUMBER
N12                                                NUMBER
D1                                                 DATE
R1                                                 RAW(32)
R2                                                 RAW(32)
CH1                                                VARCHAR2(1000)
No fields in STATS_RFC_OLD.
Regards,
Rahul.

Similar Messages

Constantly inserting into large table with unique index... Guidance?

Hello all;
So here is my world. We have central to our data monitoring system an oracle database running Oracle Standard One (please don't laugh... I understand it is comical) licensing.
This DB is about 1.7 TB of small record data.
One table in particular (the raw incoming data, 350gb, 8 billion rows, just in the table) is fed millions of rows each day in real time by two to three main "data collectors" or what have you. Data must be available in this table "as fast as possible" once it is received.
This table has 6 columns (one varchar usually empty, a few numerics including a source id, a timestamp and a create time).
The data is collect in chronological order (increasing timestamp) 90% of the time (though sometimes the timestamp may be very old and catch up to current). The other 10% of the time the data can be out of order according to the timestamp.
This table has two indexes, unique (sourceid, timestamp), and a non unique (create time). (FYI, this used to be an IOT until we had to add the second index on create time, at which point a secondary index on create time slowed the IOT to a crawl)
About 80% of this data is removed after it ages beyond 3 months; 20% is retained as "special" long term data (customer pays for longer raw source retention). The data is removed using delete statements. This table is never (99.99% of the time) updated. The indexes are not rebuilt... ever... as a rebuild is about a 20+ hour process, and without online rebuilds since we are standard one, this is just not possible.
Now what we are observing is that the inserts into this table
- Inserts are much slower based on a "wider" cardinality of the "sourceid" of the data being inserted. What I mean is that 10,000 inserts for 10,000 sourceid (regardless of timestamp) is MUCH, MUCH slower than 10,000 inserts for a single sourceid. This makes sense to me, as I understand it that oracle must inspect more branches of the index for uniqueness, and more different physical blocks will be used to store the new index data. There are about 2 million unique sourceId across our system.
- Over time, oracle is requesting more and more ram to satisfy these inserts in a timely matter. My understanding here is that oracle is attempting to hold the leafs of these indexes perpetually buffers. Our system does have a 99% cache hit rate. However, we are seeing oracle requiring roughly 10GB extra ram per quarter to 6 months; we're at about 50gb of ram just for oracle already.
- If I emulate our production load on a brand new, empty table / indexes, performance is easily 10x to 20x faster than what I see when I do the same tests with the large production copies of data.
We have the following assumption: Partitioning this table based on good logical grouping of sourceid, and then timestamp, will help reduce the work required by oracle to verify uniqueness of data, reducing the amount of data that must be cached by oracle, and allow us to handle our "older than 3 month" at a partition level, greatly reducing table and index fragmentation.
Based on our hardware, its going to be about a million dollar hit to upgrade to Enterprise (with partitioning), plus a couple hundred thousand a year in support. Currently I think we pay a whopping 5 grand a year in support, if that, total oracle costs. This is going to be a huge pill for our company to swallow.
What I am looking for guidance / help on, should we really expect partitioning to make a difference here? I want to get that 10x performance difference back we see between a fresh empty system, and our current production system. I also want to limit oracles 10gb / quarter growing need for more buffer cache (the cardinality of sourceid does NOT grow by that much per quarter... maybe 1000s per quarter, out of 2 million).
Also, please I'd appreciate it if there were no mocking comments about using standard one up to this point :) I know it is risky and insane and maybe more than a bit silly, but we make due with what we have. And all the credit in the world to oracle that their "entry" level system has been able to handle everything we've thrown at it so far! :)
Alright all, thank you very much for listening, and I look forward to hear the opinions of the experts.

Hello,
Here is a link to a blog article that will give you the right questions and answers which apply to your case:
http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com/?s=delete+90%25
As far as you are deleting 80% of your data (old data) based on a timestamp, then don't think at all about using the direct path insert /*+ append */ as suggested by one of the contributors to this thread. The direct path load will not re-use any free space made by the delete. You have two indexes:
(a) unique index (sourceid, timestamp)
(b) index(create time)
Your delete logic (based on arrival time) will smatch your indexes as far as you are always deleting the left hand side of the index; it means you will have what we call a right hand index - In other words, the scattering of the index key per leaf block is certainly catastrophic (there is an oracle iternal function named sys_op_lidbid that will allow you to verify this index information). There is a fairly chance that your two indexes will benefit from a coalesce as already suggested:
           ALTER INDEX indexname COALESCE;This coalesce should be investigated to be done on a regular basis (may be after each 80% delete) You seem to have several sourceid for one timestamp. If the answer is yes you should think about compressing this index
    create index indexname (sourceid, timestamp) compress;
or
    alter index indexname rebuild compress;     You will do it only once. Your index will have a smaller size and may be more efficient than it is actually. The index compression will add an extra CPU work during an insert but it might help improving the overal insert process.
Best Regards
Mohamed Houri

Insert in table with unique index

Hi
I Create a table save a factor for to calculate date, but other 2 columns are key table
CREATE TABLE TMP_FATOR
SETID      VARCHAR2(5 BYTE)                   NOT NULL,
COMPANYID VARCHAR2(15 BYTE)                  NOT NULL,
FATOR      NUMBER
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX IDX_TMP_FATOR ON TMP_FATOR
(SETID, COMPANYID)
NOLOGGINGI want to insert in table , but skip errors , I tried with
declare
i number;
begin
   i:=1;
           EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'TRUNCATE TABLE SYSADM.TMP_FATOR';
   BEGIN
         INSERT INTO /*+ APPEND*/ SYSADM.TMP_FATOR
                SELECT T1.SETID,
                        T1.COMPANYID,
                         SYSADM.pkg_ajusta_kenan.fnc_fator_dias_desconto(T1.SETID,T1.COMPANYID) fator
       FROM SYSADM.PS_LOC_ITEM_SN T1;
      EXCEPTION
           WHEN DUP_VAL_ON_INDEX THEN
            NULL;
       WHEN OTHERS THEN
            DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE(SQLERRM);
      END;
      COMMIT;
end;But did not work
Why ?

The determinisic keyword is just part of the
declaration whether declaring a standalone function
or a packaged function.
SCOTT @ nx102 Local> create package test_pkg
2 as
3    function determin_foo( p_arg in number )
4      return number
5      deterministic;
6 end;
7 /
Package created.
Elapsed: 00:00:00.34
1 create or replace package body test_pkg
2 as
3    function determin_foo( p_arg in number )
4      return number
5      deterministic
6    is
7    begin
8      return p_arg - 1;
9    end;
0* end;
SCOTT @ nx102 Local> /
Package body created.
Elapsed: 00:00:00.14JustinCan I to have other procedures and functions inside pacckage ?

Changes of a base table PK/unique index

After alter a new column to a base table PK on the server, recreate the snapshot and run MGP the new unique index value did not update table C$ALL_INDEXES in client database conscli.odb. After sync two unique indexes were created for current table in lite.odb, one new and one old that still remains in table C$ALL_INDEXES in the client database conscli.odb.
Please, help me resolve this problem!

Drop and recreate the publication item using the APIs, then reset the metadata. That should fix the issue.

Large tables without clustered indexes -- a bad idea, or ok?

We have several large tables that don't have clustered indexes, but do have primary keys and assorted other indexes. We're seeing issues that look like they are related to statistics even though there is a nightly update statistics job.
So my question is, does the existence of a clustered index impact other indexes or the update statistics process? Are our tables ok the way they are?
Adding clustered indexes would be a big project for non-development-related reasons so I would need to have good reasons to advocate for this.

RSingh,
"By default" is a confusing word here. If you do it with WIZARD, I agree. But with T-SQL,there is no space for by default, it can be anything.
I agree that I assumed here as I wont do much things with wizard. :)
Try the below:
--Here by default, its non-clustered
create table Test_table(Col1 int , Col2 int not null )
Create clustered index IX__Test_Table on Test_Table (Col1)
Alter table test_Table
Add Constraint PK_testTable
Primary Key (Col2);
Drop table test_table
--Here by default, its clustered
create table Test_table(Col1 int , Col2 int not null Primary key)
Create index IX__Test_Table on Test_Table (Col1)
Drop table test_table
Neither the word "By Default" is a confusing word nor it happens only in WIZARD. Let me clarify below. I said "When a primary key constraint is created it creates a unique clustered index by default". Run the below DDL and check whether
a clustered index is created or not. i.e
CREATE TABLE Persons
P_Id int NOT NULL,
LastName varchar(255) NOT NULL,
FirstName varchar(255),
Address varchar(255),
City varchar(255),
CONSTRAINT pk_PersonID PRIMARY KEY (P_Id,LastName)
Regards, RSingh
That did not really make any sense to my context as I am NOT against that it will create Clustered index, In fact, my code says the same. My point is only "By default" is confusing.
Let me explain, what I mean "By default"....
Create index IX_Indexname on Tablename(Colname)
The above will create "non clustered index" BY DEFAULT. Any situation, the above would create only non-clustered irrespective of other indexes present in the table.
Hope the above is clear. May be its my way looking at "BY DEFAULT".

How to select an item in sap.ui.table.Table without using index?

Hi there,
I want to select an item of a sap.ui.table.Table by finding the right item and selecting it.
Take the example at this SDK page:
SAPUI5 SDK - Demo Kit
You have first name and last name. I want to select "Mo Lester". While there is a function called setSelectedIndex, there is no function for setSelectedItem.
I have to search the items of the table for a required entry and select it (like clicking on it).
Is there a way to do this (programatically)?
I'm using aggregation binding with a JSON model.
Regards
Tobias

Hi Tobias,
What you could do is first find the JSON object (i.e., the table row) in your table model, and use its index in the model to set the selected index:
var matches = $.grep(array, function() {
    return(this.firstName === "John" && this.lastName === "Doe");
if (matches.length) {
    var index = yourTable.getModel().getData().indexOf(matches[0]); //first match
    yourTable.setSelectedIndex(index);

Does ADF Business Components work well with tables without primary Key?

We have tables using unique index without primary key. Can ADF Business Components relate business objects based on the unique index columns of the tables?

Hi,
Regarding my question about the XML syntax for custom properties:
It turned out to be another problem in the Entity object definition that caused the JDeveloper error. Other entities let me add the custom property without problems. However should anybody ever need that XML syntax, here's how you add a custom property to an entity definition in the XML code:
<Attribute
    Name="Id"
    IsNotNull="true"
    Precision="10"
    Scale="0"
    ColumnName="ID"
    Type="oracle.jbo.domain.Number"
    ColumnType="NUMBER"
    SQLType="NUMERIC"
    TableName="TABLE"
    PrimaryKey="true">
    <DesignTime>
      <Attr Name="_DisplaySize" Value="22"/>
    </DesignTime>
    <Properties>
      <CustomProperties>
        <Property
          Name="SequenceName"
          Value="SEQ1"/>
      </CustomProperties>
    </Properties>
</Attribute>Best regards,
Bart Kummel
Edited by: Bart Kummel on Sep 8, 2009 1:14 PM

Sort a table with no index or key defined?

Greetz!
I've got a script that builds a table, table A, by doing a select into. Later, a select is done on that table and an order by added. However the sort order is not persisting. Could this be due to there being no indexes or primary keys defined
on table A? Can a sort be done on a table without an index of any kind?
Thanks!
Love them all...regardless. - Buddha

To add to Erland's comment
You cannot "look" directly at the contents of a table - you must use a query to generate a resultset. And a resultset, just like a table, has no defined order unless it was generated using an order by clause. Any order you might observe
is simply an artifact of your data, the load on the db engine, the currently cached data, and many other factors. If you see a consistent order, you might be tempted to assume such an order will always exist. Don't be tempted. Many others
have been so tempted and have discovered the incorrectness of this assumption at a later date - often at an inconvenient time.

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.

Insert with unique index slow in 10g

Hi,
We are experiencing very slow response when a dup key is inserted into a table with unique index under 10g. the scenario can be demonstrated in sqlplus with 'timing on':
CREATE TABLE yyy (Col_1 VARCHAR2(5 BYTE) NOT NULL, Col_2 VARCHAR2(10 BYTE) NOT NULL);
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX yyy on yyy(col_1,col_2);
insert into yyy values ('1','1');
insert into yyy values ('1','1');
the 2nd insert results in "unique constraint" error, but under our 10g the response time is consistently in the range of 00:00:00.64. The 1st insert only took 00:00:00.01. BTW, if no index or non-unique index then you can insert many times and all of them return fast. Under our 9.2 DB the response time is always under 00:00:00.01 with no-, unique- and non-unique index.
We are on AIX 5.3 & 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.2.0.2.0 - 64bit Production.
Has anybody seen this scenario?
Thanks,
David

It seems that in 10g Oracle simply is doing something more.
I used your example and run following script on 9.2 and 10.2. Hardware is the same i.e. these are two instances on the same box.
begin
for i in 1..10000 loop
    begin
      insert into yyy values ('1','1');
    exception when others then null;
    end;
end loop;
end;
/on 10g it took 01:15.08 and on 9i 00:47.06
Running trace showed that in 9i there was difference in plan of following recursive sql:
9i plan:
select c.name, u.name
from
con$ c, cdef$ cd, user$ u where c.con# = cd.con# and cd.enabled = :1 and
c.owner# = u.user#
call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
Parse    10000      0.43       0.43          0          0          0           0
Execute 10000      1.09       1.07          0          0          0           0
Fetch    10000      0.23       0.19          0      20000          0           0
total    30000      1.76       1.70          0      20000          0           0
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: CHOOSE
Parsing user id: SYS   (recursive depth: 2)
Rows     Row Source Operation
      0 NESTED LOOPS
      0   NESTED LOOPS
      0    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID CDEF$
      0     INDEX RANGE SCAN I_CDEF4 (object id 53)
      0    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID CON$
      0     INDEX UNIQUE SCAN I_CON2 (object id 49)
      0   TABLE ACCESS CLUSTER USER$
      0    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN I_USER# (object id 11)10g plan
select c.name, u.name
from
con$ c, cdef$ cd, user$ u where c.con# = cd.con# and cd.enabled = :1 and
c.owner# = u.user#
call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
Parse    10000      0.21       0.20          0          0          0           0
Execute 10000      1.20       1.31          0          0          0           0
Fetch    10000      2.37       2.59          0      20000          0           0
total    30000      3.79       4.11          0      20000          0           0
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Misses in library cache during execute: 1
Optimizer mode: CHOOSE
Parsing user id: SYS   (recursive depth: 2)
Rows     Row Source Operation
      0 HASH JOIN (cr=2 pr=0 pw=0 time=301 us)
      0   NESTED LOOPS (cr=2 pr=0 pw=0 time=44 us)
      0    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID CDEF$ (cr=2 pr=0 pw=0 time=40 us)
      0     INDEX RANGE SCAN I_CDEF4 (cr=2 pr=0 pw=0 time=27 us)(object id 53)
      0    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID CON$ (cr=0 pr=0 pw=0 time=0 us)
      0     INDEX UNIQUE SCAN I_CON2 (cr=0 pr=0 pw=0 time=0 us)(object id 49)
      0   TABLE ACCESS FULL USER$ (cr=0 pr=0 pw=0 time=0 us)So in 10g it had hash join instead of nested loop join at least for this particular select. Probably time to gather stats on sys tables?
The difference in time wasn't so big though 4.11 vs 1.70 so it doesn't explain all the time taken.
But you can probably check whether you haven't more difference.
Also you can download Thomas Kyte runstats_pkg and run it on both environments to compare whether some stats or latches haven't very big difference.
Gints Plivna
http://www.gplivna.eu

Add an index to a DB table without modification?

I have a database table in the SAP namespace, and I would like to add one or two indices to the table (non unique database index). This is not possible without modifying the table, right?

Hi Daniel,
No it wouldnt be a modification to the table but you should first analyze the impact of the index since its not advisable to create index always.
refer the below link:-
[Create index in standard table;
[What to Keep in Mind for Secondary Indexes|http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/cf/21eb2d446011d189700000e8322d00/content.htm]
Regards
Abhii
Edited by: Abhii on Sep 1, 2010 3:49 PM

Can we change the fields of database unique index in a customised table?

Hi all..
I want to know that can we create or change or delete the database unique index of a customized table?
In my case, there is a customised table with 4 primary keys with all the records to be maintained thru transaction code SM30.
There is database unique index maintained for this table which has 2 fields. These 2 fields are out of the 4 primary fields of the table.I hope I have made myself clear!
Now when I am trying to insert a record in the table it give me a short dump.( It says duplication of records is not allowed)
The reason being that the new record that I am trying to insert in the database table has those 2 fields for which the unique index is maintained is the same as an already existing record.And the other two fields are different from the already existing record.So overall the combination of the 4 primary fields is different.
Please tell me how shall I proceed now?
I also tried to change the Unique index but it is asking me some kind of authrization(You are not authorized to make changes (authorization object S_DEVELOP)).Also I am not sure whether changing the unique index is feasible or not.?
Thanks.

hi
I think you will not be able to do unique indexing withou the help of primary keys,so use all the primary keys into the table field selections and and then create indexing otherwise dupilication of keys can occur. if you are not able to keep the primary keys then go for non unique key indexing,where you have to add the client field and the any keys of your wish.

Create unique index on flow table

Hi
I always get this error 'Create unique index on flow table ERROR" while implementing SCD2. Please help me.I have made an Update Key which is a combination of 4 columns that want a new row to be inserted if there is a change in data.One of the above columns is the EMPLOYEE ID,
My surrogate key is the table's primary key but I have not defined it as a key in mapping and also I have turned off the Primary Key Constraint Option in Controls Panel as NO.
Where am I wrong? Also please tell me what to take care off while making Natural Key ?

There are two solutions:
1. Only use uppercase in the table name
2. go in Topology>Physical Architecture and edit the technology, then click on
the "Language" tab and set "Object Delimiter" to empty.
Thanks,
Sutirtha

Create Unique Index On Flow does not work for table names 23 characters

I have a "create unique index on flow table" step that is dynamically generated by the IKM.
The index name that is generated by the IKM is based on the table name except that the created index name is prefixed with "I$_" and ends with "_idx". Obviously, since Oracle table names can not exceed 30 characters in length, the index creation step will fail if the base table name exceeds 23 characters.
I have tried to substring the index name generation step in the IKM so that it only uses the first 23 characters of the table name, but have not had any luck with using the "substring" command together with snpRef.getTable call.
This is the section of the IKM that I desire to change:
- <Field name="Txt" type="java.lang.String">
- <![CDATA[
create unique index      <%=snpRef.getTable("L","INT_NAME","W")%>_idx
on          <%=snpRef.getTable("L","INT_NAME","W")%> (<%=snpRef.getColList("", "[COL_NAME]", ", ", "", "UK")%>)
<%=snpRef.getUserExit("FLOW_TABLE_OPTIONS")%>
]]>
</Field>
I would like to change the above to something similar to the following (note the only change is the addition of substring(1,23))
- <Field name="Txt" type="java.lang.String">
- <![CDATA[
create unique index <%=snpRef.getTable("L","INT_NAME","W")*.substring(1,23)*%_idx
on          <%=snpRef.getTable("L","INT_NAME","W")%> (<%=snpRef.getColList("", "[COL_NAME]", ", ", "", "UK")%>)
<%=snpRef.getUserExit("FLOW_TABLE_OPTIONS")%>
]]>
</Field>
Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks.

As the index is temporary, just like the I$ talbel, the easiest way is to replace the table name with some unique identifier like the session is:
bq. I$_<%=odiRef.getSession("SESS_NO")%>_idx
If for some reason that is not unique enough, add the NNO:
bq. I$_<%=odiRef.getSession("SESS_NO")%><%=odiRef.getSession("NNO")%> \\ _idx

Hi i have created a unique index on table on 3 columns.

Hi i have created a unique index on table on 3 columns.I want to know when i have 2 records
which contain same values in 2 fields and the 3rd field contains a null
will unique index allow me to insert these records.

Robert Angel wrote:
This must be one time when null = null. ;)
regards,
Robert.Not really, it is more the case that the non-null columns need to be unique. Your second attempt failed because there was already an index entry with 'a', 'b', and the lack of a value for column c gave Oracle no way to differentiate between the two rows so they are not unique.
A subtle, but conceptually important difference. :-)
John

Tables without unique index

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for