Unable to de-fragment a table index

I have a table with a single PK index that shows a 75% fragmentation.
I've tried rebuilding the index and I've tried reorganizing the index but neither changes the reported fragmentation for the table.
I don't see any errors reported. I'm at a loss as to what I need to do to defragment this index.
Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?
BTW it's SQL 2008 R2 standard edition if that makes a difference.
Developer Frog Haven Enterprises

as Jason mentioned you should also consider index page count while defragmenting indexes,
Generally, you should not be concerned with fragmentation levels of indexes with less than 1,000 pages. you can refer below article for more info
Microsoft SQL Server Index Defragmentation Best Practices
you can also refer Ola hallengren's index maintenance scripts.
http://ola.hallengren.com/sql-server-index-and-statistics-maintenance.html
Please mark solved if I've answered your question, vote for it as helpful to help other users find a solution quicker
Praveen Dsa | MCITP - Database Administrator 2008 |
My Blog | My Page

Similar Messages

Fragmentation in tables and indexes

Can exist fragmentation in tables & indexes with ASM?

mexman,
ASM is a disk managment system that has no relationship to the concept of table/index fragmentation.
You probably mean ASSM.
ASSM affects some of the details of how object space is managed but table/index internal fragmentation could still exist though this is usually not an issue with or without ASSM depending on the DML pattern.
Research the archives on this topic as suggested if you want to know about detecting internal object fragmentation.
HTH -- Mark D Powell --

Fragmentation in tables and indexes with 9.2.0.5

Hi guys ,
I need of query to identified fragmentation in tables and indexes using Oracle 9i,someone could help me send that's querys
tks
spaulonci

Fragmentation by itself at the tablespace level doesn't mean any thing from the performance point of view, only from the storage capacity perspective, and this just in case fragments are not necessarily the same size as in the case of dictionary manged tablespaces.
You may be concerned about block density, which actually could lead to performance degradation. I suggest you to consider using coalesce instead of rebuilding in the case of indexes, and in the case of tables you should perform a segment reorganization. In the case of 9iR2 the coalesce command for table segments is not available so you will have to perform another segment reorganization strategy. If there are meaningful differences with the high water mark, average number of rows per block and chained rows then you will notice performance differences.
I suggest you to take metrics for block usage prior to perform an index coalesce operation, as well as prior to perform a data segment reorganization to assess if the reorganization effort is useful.
~ Madrid
http://hrivera99.blogspot.com/

Unable to update when executed, table gets lock Execution does not stop Execution even for an hour

Following is my Query unable to update when Executed table gets lock Execution does not stop even for an hour.
update Employees
set Status = 'Close'
where statusid IN (select statusid
from MyView
where DownloadedDate ='2014-07-27 00:00:00.000'
here Employee contains 3,00,000 of records and Subquery return 1,50,000 Empid
i tried in various ways but not able to solve, statusid column have no index on, i tried using cursor but it does not work.
plz let me know how to solve this Issue, THANKS IN ADVANCE.

Hello,
You should better post your question to a more related Forum, like Transact-SQL or SQL Server Database Engine; this Forum is for samples & community Projects.
Have you checked the execution plan if indexes are used?
You could update the data in chunks, e.g. 10.000 rows per execution. For this you have to add a TOP clause and a filter to update only those, who are not updated yet.
update TOP (10000) Employees
set Status = 'Close'
where statusid IN
(select statusid
from MyView
where DownloadedDate ='2014-07-27 00:00:00.000')
AND Status <> 'Close'
Olaf Helper
[ Blog] [ Xing] [ MVP]

Unable to update, when executed table gets lock and Execution does not stop even for an hour.

Following is my Query, which unables to update. When Executed, table gets lock and Execution does not stop even for an hour.
update Employees
set Status = 'Close'
where statusid IN (select statusid
from MyView
where DownloadedDate ='2014-07-27 00:00:00.000'
here Employee contains 3,00,000 of records and Subquery return 1,50,000 Empid
i tried in various ways but not able to solve, statusid column have no index on, i tried using cursor but it does not work.
plz let me know how to solve this Issue, Its very Important to get solve as all my further work depends on Updation
, THANKS IN ADVANCE.

See also your other thread with the same question:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/80243625-fc3b-4ee1-bce1-4adcdbc16c14/unable-to-update-when-executed-table-gets-lock-execution-does-not-stop-execution-even-for-an-hour?forum=sqlserversamples
Olaf Helper
[ Blog] [ Xing] [ MVP]

Question on fragmentation and ALTER INDEX REBUILD/REORGANIZE not effecting it

The problem I ran into was troubleshooting a sporadically slow singleton lookup on a Clustered Index in a table with about 8 million rows, which is a separate issue I may need to submit for help. That aside, during that troubleshooting I noticed fragmentation
on the Unique Clustered Index (it's a VARCHAR(20)), and then noticed the fragmentation in other indexes on this table. See sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats and DBCC SHOWCONTIG results below.
SELECT
substring(OBJECT_NAME(i.object_id),1,30) AS TableName,
substring(i.name,1,40) AS TableIndexName,
i.index_id, phystat.index_level,
phystat.avg_fragmentation_in_percent
FROM
sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(DB_ID(), NULL, NULL, NULL, 'DETAILED') phystat inner JOIN sys.indexes i
ON i.object_id = phystat.object_id
AND i.index_id = phystat.index_id WHERE
OBJECT_NAME(i.object_id) = 'CONSUMERS'
TableName TableIndexName index_id index_level avg_fragmentation_in_percent
CONSUMERS UNI2K_CONSUMERS 1 0
0.154827346202469
CONSUMERS UNI2K_CONSUMERS 1 1
35.2941176470588
CONSUMERS UNI2K_CONSUMERS 1 2
0
CONSUMERS PK__CONSUMER__7F6B0B8B286302EC 2 0 0.336078590685822
CONSUMERS PK__CONSUMER__7F6B0B8B286302EC 2 1 100
CONSUMERS PK__CONSUMER__7F6B0B8B286302EC 2 2 0
CONSUMERS UNI1K_CONSUMERS 3 0
0.156451316031658
CONSUMERS UNI1K_CONSUMERS 3 1
61.1510791366906
CONSUMERS UNI1K_CONSUMERS 3 2
0
CONSUMERS IDX1_CONSUMERS 4 0
0.215271389144434
CONSUMERS IDX1_CONSUMERS 4 1
40
CONSUMERS IDX1_CONSUMERS 4 2
100
CONSUMERS IDX1_CONSUMERS 4 3
0
CONSUMERS IDX2_CONSUMERS 5 0
0.222614710968834
CONSUMERS IDX2_CONSUMERS 5 1
38.6281588447653
CONSUMERS IDX2_CONSUMERS 5 2
75
CONSUMERS IDX2_CONSUMERS 5 3
0
(17 row(s) affected)
DBCC SHOWCONTIG('CONSUMERS') WITH ALL_INDEXES
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'CONSUMERS' table...
Table: 'CONSUMERS' (645577338); index ID: 1, database ID: 5
TABLE level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned................................: 70401
- Extents Scanned..............................: 8827
- Extent Switches..............................: 8843
- Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 99.51% [8801:8844]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 0.15%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 23.76%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 47.2
- Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 99.42%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'CONSUMERS' table...
Table: 'CONSUMERS' (645577338); index ID: 2, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned................................: 27077
- Extents Scanned..............................: 3402
- Extent Switches..............................: 3402
- Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 99.47% [3385:3403]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 0.34%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 11.88%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 24.1
- Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 99.70%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'CONSUMERS' table...
Table: 'CONSUMERS' (645577338); index ID: 3, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned................................: 54330
- Extents Scanned..............................: 6803
- Extent Switches..............................: 6805
- Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 99.79% [6792:6806]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 0.16%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 7.03%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 50.3
- Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 99.38%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'CONSUMERS' table...
Table: 'CONSUMERS' (645577338); index ID: 4, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned................................: 54350
- Extents Scanned..............................: 6808
- Extent Switches..............................: 6837
- Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 99.36% [6794:6838]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 0.22%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 7.17%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 53.2
- Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 99.34%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'CONSUMERS' table...
Table: 'CONSUMERS' (645577338); index ID: 5, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned................................: 54354
- Extents Scanned..............................: 6804
- Extent Switches..............................: 6846
- Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 99.24% [6795:6847]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 0.22%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 7.13%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 53.8
- Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 99.33%
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.
This fragmentation I found shocking because I reorg nightly and have a weekly rebuild task running that I set up through the Maintenance Plan wizard (which I've verified has been running). So I attempted to reorg these manually (especially index ID: 1)
and to my shock the fragmentation % did not change at all. I then took the SQL provided by the Maintenance Plan for rebuilding the indexes and found that after running that it didn't change the fragementation % at all either (commands run shown below).
ALTER INDEX [IDX1_CONSUMERS] ON [dbo].[CONSUMERS] REBUILD PARTITION = ALL WITH ( PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON, ONLINE = ON, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON )
GO
ALTER INDEX [IDX2_CONSUMERS] ON [dbo].[CONSUMERS] REBUILD PARTITION = ALL WITH ( PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON, ONLINE = ON, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON )
GO
ALTER INDEX [UNI1K_CONSUMERS] ON [dbo].[CONSUMERS] REBUILD PARTITION = ALL WITH ( PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ONLINE = ON, SORT_IN_TEMPDB
= ON )
GO
ALTER INDEX [UNI2K_CONSUMERS] ON [dbo].[CONSUMERS] REBUILD PARTITION = ALL WITH ( PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ONLINE = ON, SORT_IN_TEMPDB
= ON )
GO
Fragmentation did not change until I performed a "CREATE ... DROP_EXISTING = ON" on the 4 non PK indexes and a manual rebuild of Primary Key offline not specifying any other parameters, which all seemed completely overkill to ensure the defragmentation
actually got done. Final sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats and DBCC SHOWCONTIG results below.
SELECT
substring(OBJECT_NAME(i.object_id),1,30) AS TableName,
substring(i.name,1,40) AS TableIndexName,
i.index_id, phystat.index_level,
phystat.avg_fragmentation_in_percent
FROM
sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(DB_ID(), NULL, NULL, NULL, 'DETAILED') phystat inner JOIN sys.indexes i
ON i.object_id = phystat.object_id
AND i.index_id = phystat.index_id WHERE
OBJECT_NAME(i.object_id) = 'CONSUMERS'
TableName TableIndexName index_id index_level avg_fragmentation_in_percent
CONSUMERS UNI2K_CONSUMERS 1 0
0.0213458562356583
CONSUMERS UNI2K_CONSUMERS 1 1
11.2426035502959
CONSUMERS UNI2K_CONSUMERS 1 2
0
CONSUMERS PK__CONSUMER__7F6B0B8B286302EC 2 0 0.0460971112476951
CONSUMERS PK__CONSUMER__7F6B0B8B286302EC 2 1 14.2857142857143
CONSUMERS PK__CONSUMER__7F6B0B8B286302EC 2 2 0
CONSUMERS UNI1K_CONSUMERS 3 0
0.0225314031431307
CONSUMERS UNI1K_CONSUMERS 3 1
10.6194690265487
CONSUMERS UNI1K_CONSUMERS 3 2
0
CONSUMERS IDX1_CONSUMERS 4 0
0.0225318262045139
CONSUMERS IDX1_CONSUMERS 4 1
10.7296137339056
CONSUMERS IDX1_CONSUMERS 4 2
0
CONSUMERS IDX1_CONSUMERS 4 3
0
CONSUMERS IDX2_CONSUMERS 5 0
0.0225314031431307
CONSUMERS IDX2_CONSUMERS 5 1
12.0171673819742
CONSUMERS IDX2_CONSUMERS 5 2
0
CONSUMERS IDX2_CONSUMERS 5 3
0
(17 row(s) affected)
DBCC SHOWCONTIG('CONSUMERS') WITH ALL_INDEXES
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'CONSUMERS' table...
Table: 'CONSUMERS' (645577338); index ID: 1, database ID: 5
TABLE level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned................................: 56217
- Extents Scanned..............................: 7029
- Extent Switches..............................: 7028
- Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 99.99% [7028:7029]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 0.02%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 0.44%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 32.4
- Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 99.60%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'CONSUMERS' table...
Table: 'CONSUMERS' (645577338); index ID: 2, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned................................: 26032
- Extents Scanned..............................: 3256
- Extent Switches..............................: 3255
- Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 99.94% [3254:3256]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 0.05%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 0.31%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 11.1
- Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 99.86%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'CONSUMERS' table...
Table: 'CONSUMERS' (645577338); index ID: 3, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned................................: 53259
- Extents Scanned..............................: 6659
- Extent Switches..............................: 6658
- Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 99.98% [6658:6659]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 0.02%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 0.35%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 40.5
- Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 99.50%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'CONSUMERS' table...
Table: 'CONSUMERS' (645577338); index ID: 4, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned................................: 53258
- Extents Scanned..............................: 6659
- Extent Switches..............................: 6658
- Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 99.98% [6658:6659]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 0.02%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 0.53%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 40.3
- Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 99.50%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'CONSUMERS' table...
Table: 'CONSUMERS' (645577338); index ID: 5, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned................................: 53259
- Extents Scanned..............................: 6659
- Extent Switches..............................: 6658
- Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 99.98% [6658:6659]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 0.02%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 0.59%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 40.5
- Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 99.50%
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.
For the record, here's the version I'm running:
select @@VERSION
Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 (SP1) - 10.50.2500.0 (X64)
Jun 17 2011 00:54:03
Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation
Enterprise Edition (64-bit) on Windows NT 6.1 <X64> (Build 7601: Service Pack 1)
In summary my question is - why didn't ALTER INDEX ... REBUILD/REORGANIZE modify the index_level 1 fragmentation as reported by sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats, nor would it correct the Extent Scan Fragmentation as reported by DBCC SHOWCONTIG?

Hi Brian.cs ,
SQL Server will not rebuild indexes that are not large enough. Could you please have a look a the
fragment_count which is one of the fields in the
sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats view to check whether it is low or not ?
Best Regards,
Peja
Please remember to click "Mark as Answer" on the post that helps you, and to click "Unmark as Answer" if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.
Peja, here's the information you requested, and of course this was after I dropped/recreated because rebuild didn't seem to actually address the fragmentation - the index I was most concerned about at index_level = 0 showed a fragment_count = 8922. FYI this
table has over 8 million rows. And apologies for the delayed response, was on vacation over the near year.
SELECT
substring(OBJECT_NAME(i.object_id),1,30) AS TableName,
substring(i.name,1,40) AS TableIndexName,
i.index_id, phystat.index_level,
phystat.avg_fragmentation_in_percent, fragment_count
FROM
sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(DB_ID(), NULL, NULL, NULL, 'DETAILED') phystat inner JOIN sys.indexes i
ON i.object_id = phystat.object_id
AND i.index_id = phystat.index_id WHERE
OBJECT_NAME(i.object_id) = 'CONSUMERS'
TableName TableIndexName index_id index_level avg_fragmentation_in_percent
fragment_count
CONSUMERS UNI2K_CONSUMERS 1 0
0.259780818806428 8922
CONSUMERS UNI2K_CONSUMERS 1 1
39.4190871369295 86
CONSUMERS UNI2K_CONSUMERS 1 2
0 1
CONSUMERS PK__CONSUMER__7F6B0B8B286302EC 2 0 0.240887634434766
5182
CONSUMERS PK__CONSUMER__7F6B0B8B286302EC 2 1 80.3738317757009
84
CONSUMERS PK__CONSUMER__7F6B0B8B286302EC 2 2 0
1
CONSUMERS UNI1K_CONSUMERS 3 0
0.0661472879611936 8532
CONSUMERS UNI1K_CONSUMERS 3 1
53.4883720930233 86
CONSUMERS UNI1K_CONSUMERS 3 2
0 1
CONSUMERS IDX1_CONSUMERS 4 0
0.192426334498663 8598
CONSUMERS IDX1_CONSUMERS 4 1
31.5315315315315 95
CONSUMERS IDX1_CONSUMERS 4 2
85.7142857142857 7
CONSUMERS IDX1_CONSUMERS 4 3
0 1
CONSUMERS IDX2_CONSUMERS 5 0
0.189494094835184 8613
CONSUMERS IDX2_CONSUMERS 5 1
31.8840579710145 97
CONSUMERS IDX2_CONSUMERS 5 2
85.7142857142857 7
CONSUMERS IDX2_CONSUMERS 5 3
0 1

Tables & Index not showing any data

Hi All,
I have done the db2 upgradtion from 9.1 to 9.7 with fix pack 4.I am unable to see table size after upgrade. I have checked all the sap collector job running fine.
db02>history>tables& index not showing any data
Regrads,
Mnai

Please make sure RSCOL00 running or execute it manually.
Did you try to run the stats in DB13 ?

How to obtain the table index in word use LabVIEW Report Generation Toolkit for Microsoft Office

I created a word templete and it had several tables. When I use the "Word Edit Cell" function in LabVIEW Report Generation Toolkit for Microsoft Office, the function need "table index", and I didn't find any function to get or set the table index in word document. How can I achieve my attention to write value to specified table cell using the "Word Edit Cell" function?
Thanks for reply!
YangAfreet

Hi yangafreet
You do not need to get the table index for the word edit cell.vi from anywhere. LabVIEW will automatically index all the tables in the document. See the attatched vi for an example.
Rich
Attachments:
Table Edit.vi ‏23 KB

To Use Cursor or TYPE table Index by PLS_integer

Hi All,
Let's see if I have table with no. of records 19,26,20,000.
If I want to loop through all the records which will be a optimized way To Use Cursor or TYPE table Index by PLS_integer.
Please guide.
Thanks.

What is it you want to do to/with the rows you're looping through?
Ideally you want to avoid looping, as that's row by row (aka slow by slow) processing and it's expensive time-wise.
If you're doing DML (insert/update/delete) then you're best off doing it in one sql statement, rather than looping.

Fact Table index vs BIA Index

BIA gurus..
Prior to our BIA implementation we had the drop and rebuild index process variants in our process chains.
Now after the BIA implementation we have the BIA index roll-up process variant included in the process chain.
Is it still required to have the drop and rebuilt index process variants during data load ?
Do the infocube fact table indexes ever get hit after the BIA implementation ?
Thanks,
Ajay Pathak.

I think you still need the delete/create Index variants as it not only helps in query performance but also speeds up the load to your cubes.
Documentation in Perfomance tab:
"Indices can be deleted before the load process and after the loading is finished be recreated. This accelerates the data loading. However, simultaneous read processes to a cube are negatively influenced: they slow down dramatically. Therefore, this method should only be used if no read processes take place during the data loading."
More details at:
[http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw70/helpdata/EN/80/1a6473e07211d2acb80000e829fbfe/frameset.htm]

Need to find total no fo tables/index/m.views in my database

Hello Everyone ;
How can i find total no fo tables/index/m.views in my database ?
when i google i have seen following command ;
SQL> Select count(1) from user_tables where table_name not like '%$%' /
COUNT(1)
but i dont understand what '%$%' indicates ?
Thanks all ;

Hello Everyone ;
How can i find total no fo tables/index/m.views in my database ?
when i google i have seen following command ;
SQL> Select count(1) from user_tables where table_name not like '%$%' /
COUNT(1)
but i dont understand what '%$%' indicates ?
Thanks all ;
consider to simply Read The Fine Manual YOURSELF!
Oracle Database Search Results: like

PDE-PLI031 Unable to fetch record from table tool_modulre

Dear ALL
I am creating PL/SQL Libraries in report builder.
but When I try to save the Library to database, a error
PDE-PLI031 Unable to fetch record from table tool_modulre.
Would you please tell me how to solve this problem
and why it coming
thankyou very much
pritam singh

Hi ,
Saving a library (.pll) to database would store the object inside specific tables that are to be created.
If you are using 6i, then you should find toolbild & toolgrnt.sql files which you have to run in the order specified. The above scripts creates the necessary tables and henceforth you won't get those errors while saving.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
Vinod.

How to fragment a table in oracle?

I am a bit confused about horizontal fragmentation in oracle, for example:
I have two databases A and B
I create a employee table in A database that has name, dept attributes
Now I want to fragment this table, put all the rows where dept=science to table employee in B database,
so in B database I type:
create table employee
as select * from employee@A
where dept='science';
But the employee table in A database still has all the data , thats not what I want, I want employees in A that are not from science dept
So how should I do this? in one step?

891814 wrote:
I am a bit confused about horizontal fragmentation in oracle, for example:
I have two databases A and B
I create a employee table in A database that has name, dept attributes
Now I want to fragment this table, put all the rows where dept=science to table employee in B database,
so in B database I type:
create table employee
as select * from employee@A
where dept='science';
But the employee table in A database still has all the data , thats not what I want, I want employees in A that are not from science dept
So how should I do this? in one step?Well, creating a table in B using data that is queried from A, isn't going to magically remove the data from A.
You'd need to have a subsequent DELETE statement that deletes the records from A that have been moved to B e.g.
delete from employee@A
where dept != 'science'

New tables & indexes created do not show up in dba_segments view

Dear all,
I have created 3 tables and some indexes, but these objects do not show up in dba_segments view. Is this a normal behaviour? Previously, with dictionary managed tablespace, I can specify the minimum extent to create, when the table/index is created. But I'm not sure how the locally managed tablespace work. Please do advice. Thank you very much in advance.
I'm using Oracle 11g R2 (11.2.0.1.0) for Microsoft Windows (x64), running on Windows 7.
For the purpose of reproducing this issue, I have created the tablespaces as follow:
CREATE TABLESPACE CUST_DATA
DATAFILE 'd:\app\asus\oradata\orcl11gr2\CUST_DATA01.DBF' SIZE 512K
AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 256K MAXSIZE 2000K
EXTENT MANAGEMENT LOCAL UNIFORM SIZE 256K
SEGMENT SPACE MANAGEMENT AUTO;
CREATE TABLESPACE CUST_INDX
DATAFILE 'd:\app\asus\oradata\orcl11gr2\CUST_INDX.DBF' SIZE 256K
AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 128K MAXSIZE 2000K
EXTENT MANAGEMENT LOCAL UNIFORM SIZE 128K
SEGMENT SPACE MANAGEMENT AUTO;
CREATE TABLE CUSTOMER_MASTER (CUST_ID VARCHAR2 (10),
CUST_NAME VARCHAR2 (30),
EMAIL VARCHAR2 (30),
DOB DATE,
ADD_TYPE CHAR (2) CONSTRAINT CK_ADD_TYPE CHECK (ADD_TYPE IN ('B1','B2','H1','H2')),
CRE_USER VARCHAR2 (5) DEFAULT USER,
CRE_TIME TIMESTAMP (3) DEFAULT SYSTIMESTAMP,
MOD_USER VARCHAR2 (5),
MOD_TIME TIMESTAMP (3),
CONSTRAINT PK_CUSTOMER_MASTER PRIMARY KEY (CUST_ID) USING INDEX TABLESPACE CUST_INDX)
TABLESPACE CUST_DATA;
SQL> SELECT TABLE_NAME, TABLESPACE_NAME
2 FROM USER_TABLES
3 WHERE TABLE_NAME LIKE 'CUST%';
TABLE_NAME TABLESPACE_NAME
CUSTOMER_MASTER CUST_DATA
SQL> SELECT INDEX_NAME, TABLESPACE_NAME
2 FROM USER_INDEXES
3 WHERE TABLE_NAME LIKE '%CUST%';
INDEX_NAME TABLESPACE_NAME
PK_CUSTOMER_MASTER CUST_INDX
SQL> SELECT SEGMENT_NAME, SEGMENT_TYPE, TABLESPACE_NAME, BYTES
2 FROM USER_SEGMENTS;
no rows selected

Prior to 11g, when you created a table or whatever, you automatically allocated one extent.
This is now no longer true and depends on a parameter I don't remember.
dba_segments is a summary of dba_extents.
Obviously, if there is no extent allocated, the table (view is defined with inner join) will not show up.
You could qualify this is as a bug and submit a SR to Oracle. But then the performance impact may be huge.
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

Getting error while creating form and report on webservice: ORA-20001: Unable to create form on table. ORA-02263: need to specify the datatype for this column.

i am using the following description to create a web service reference:
web reference :REST
Name :Yahoo Map
URL :http://local.yahooapis.com/MapsService/V1/mapImage
HTTP Method: GET
Basic Authentication: No
Add Parameter:
Name       Type
appid        String
location    String
Output Format: XML
XPath to Output Parameters : /Result
Output Parameter:
Name       Path       Type
Url          /text()      String
Then i tried to create form and report on webservice:
Web Service Reference Type: Yahoo Map
Operation: doREST
All the fields i keep as default
I tick the checkbox (url)in report Parameter
After clicking next whereever required i click create button
I get the following error
ORA-20001: Unable to create form on table. ORA-02263: need to specify the datatype for this column.
Please someone help to solve this as i need to fix it urgently.

i exported the application from apex.oracle.com and imported it to our environment
import went fine, but when I ran the IR page I got
ORA-20001: get_dbms_sql_cursor error ORA-00904: : invalid identifier
evidently the problem is a lack of public execute on DBMS_LOB, which is used in the generated IR source.
while waiting for the DBA to grant privs on DBMS_LOB, changing the dbms_lob.getlength call to length() fixes the IR.
however, i am not getting the download link on the associated form page... changed templates, that's not the issue -- we'll see if that's a dbms_lob issue as well

Unable to de-fragment a table index

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for