Conversion of non partitioned in partitioned table

Similar Questions

• Scans of partition take longer than a full table on a non-partitioned table scan?

  Hello

  I have a PART_TABLE range partitioned table that has 10 million documents and 10 partitions having 1 million records each. Partition is based on a column named ID, which is a sequence of 1 to 10 million.

  I created another P2_BKP table (do a select * from part_table) which has the same group of data than that of PART_TABLE, except that this table is not partitioned.

  Now, I run the same query on the tables to get a range of data. Precisely, I'm reading only the data present in 5 partitions of the partitioned tables that requires theoretically less reading than when done on non partitioned tables.

  Yet the query seems to take more time on a table that is partitioned only when running on a non-partitioned table. No reason precisely why is this the case?

  Here's the query I am trying to run on the tables and their Plans to explain corresponding.

  ASK A

  =========

  Select * from P2_BKP where id < 5000000;

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  | ID | Operation | Name | Lines | Bytes | Cost (% CPU). Time |

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT |        |  6573K |   720 M | 12152 (2) | 00:02:26 |

  |*  1 |  TABLE ACCESS FULL | P2_BKP |  6573K |   720 M | 12152 (2) | 00:02:26 |

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  QUERY B

  ========

  Select * from part_table where id < 5000000;

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  | ID | Operation | Name | Lines | Bytes | Cost (% CPU). Time | Pstart. Pstop |

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT |            |  3983K |   436 M | 22181 (73) | 00:04:27 |       |       |

  |   1.  RANGE OF PARTITION ITERATOR.            |  3983K |   436 M | 22181 (73) | 00:04:27 |     1.     5.

  |*  2 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL | PART_TABLE |  3983K |   436 M | 22181 (73) | 00:04:27 |     1.     5.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  016f62a3-35cf-4f4e-B812-95774e4d662f wrote:

  Now, I run the same query on the tables to get a range of data. Precisely, I'm reading only the data present in 5 partitions of the partitioned tables that requires theoretically less reading than when done on non partitioned tables.

  Yet the query seems to take more time on a table that is partitioned only when running on a non-partitioned table. No reason precisely why is this the case?

  Have you actually run the queries, or you assume that they will take different amounts of time because the execution plans show different numbers?

  It is clear from the output of the execution plan that the statistics are not very good, since Oracle should have estimated about 5 M of lines for each request. That said, however, Oracle should have used the counties of partition block level to estimate the cost of the analysis of the 5 score - and we could expect them to a total of less space than a full copy.

  Of course, it is possible that your partitioned table has been the subject of many DML involving the line movement and line of chaining; It is possible he has been the subject of many lots of parallel or direct path loads inserts leaving much free space in each partition. It is also possible that you have created the copy in a tablespace that table of default compression!

  What are the stats for the original table partition level?   (select nom_partition, num_rows, blocks of user_tab_partitions where table_name = 'T1' partition_position order)

  Concerning

  Jonathan Lewis

• A slower loading into partitioned table as the non partitioned table - why?

  Hello
  
  Using oracle 11.2.0.3.
  
  Have a large fact table and do some comparative tests on the loading of large amounts of data histroical (several hundred GB) in fact range partitioned to date table.
  
  Although I understand if use exhange partition loading may be faster to load a partitioned table, trying to figure out why a standard sql insert takes 3 x long to load a table partitioned compared to an identical table but not partitioned. Identical EVERYHING in terms of columsn and the sql that the insert and second partitioned sql execution to
  ensure caching with no impact.
  
  Local partitioned table a partitioned bitmap index as compared to the non-partitioned table that has standardnon-partioned bitmap indexes.
  
  Any ideas/thoughts?
  
  Thank you

  One would expect that the queries that cannot no partition pruning may be slowed down, Yes.

  An easy way to see this is to imagine that you have a partitioned local index b-tree and a query that needs to scan all partitions of the index to find a handful of lines that interest you (of course, this is not likely to be exactly what you see probably but we hope informative of the source of the problem). Let's say that each partition of the index has a height of 3, so for each partition, Oracle has read 3 blocks to reach the correct terminal node. So to analyze each of the N index partitions, you need block index 3 * N bed. If the index is not partitioned, perhaps the height of the index would go up to 4 or 5 If, in that case not partitioned, you must read 4 or 5 blocks. If you have hundreds or thousands of partitions, it can easily be hundreds of times more work to analyze all the index partitions individual he would to analyze one unpartitioned index.

  Partitioning is not a magical option "go faster". It is a compromise - you optimize certain operations (such as those that can partition pruning) at the expense of operations that do not partition size.

  Justin

• Collection of statistics on partitioned and non-partitioned tables

  Hi all
  My DB is 11.1
  
  I find that the collection of statistics on partitioned tables are really slow.
  

  TABLE_NAME                       NUM_ROWS     BLOCKS SAMPLE_SIZE LAST_ANALYZED PARTITIONED COMPRESSION
  ------------------------------ ---------- ---------- ----------- ------------- ----------- -----------
  O_FCT_BP1                        112123170     843140    11212317 8/30/2011 3:5            NO                    DISABLED
  LEON_123456                      112096060     521984    11209606 8/30/2011 4:2           NO                   ENABLED
  O_FCT                           115170000     486556      115170 8/29/2011 6:3            YES         
  
  SQL> SELECT COUNT(*)  FROM user_tab_subpartitions
    2  WHERE table_name =O_FCT'
    3  ;
  
    COUNT(*)
  ----------
         112

  I used the following script:

  BEGIN
    DBMS_STATS.GATHER_TABLE_STATS(ownname          => user,
                                  tabname          => O_FCT',
                                  method_opt       => 'for all columns size auto',
                                  degree           => 4,
                                  estimate_percent =>10,
                                  granularity      => 'ALL',
                                  cascade          => false);
  END;
  /

  It costs 2 minutes for the first two tables to gather statistics respectively, but more than 10 minutes for the partitioned table.
  Time of collection of statistics represents a large part of the time of the whole lot.
  Most of the work of the lot are at full load, which case all partitions and subpartitions will be affected and we cannot collect just specified partitions.
  
  Does anyone have experiences on this subject? Thank you very much.
  
  Best regards
  Leon
  
  Published by: user12064076 on August 30, 2011 01:45

  Hi Leon

  Why don't collect you statistics to the partition level? If your data partitions will not change after a day (score range date for ex), you can simply do to the partition level

  GRANULARITY-online 'SCORE' for partition level and
  GRANULARITY-online 'SUBPARTITION' for subpartition level

  You collect global stats whenever you can not require.

  Published by: user12035575 on August 30, 2011 01:50

• import a table that is partitioned into non partitioned table?

  Hello
  
  RDBMS 10 g
  
  It's my scenario:
  I took an export datapump of a schema containing partitioned tables.
  
  Now, I'm supposed to import this schema in another data base were partitioning option is not installed, so it must be converted to a table somehow unique bunch.
  
  What are my options to achieve this without having to install partitioning... ?
  
  Thank you!

  Extract the ddl, create the tables (not cut) at the front, and then import data only (or table_exists_action = add).

  Nicolas.

• Deleting huge records with parallel option in a non-partitioned table

  Hi all
  
  Is it possible to run delete statement with sub query that removes millions of records in a table that is not partitioned with parallel option?
  
  SQL > Alter session enable parallel query.
  
  SQL > Alter session enable parallel dml.
  
  SQL > alter table table_A parallel 5;
  
  SQL > delete the table_A where colA = "zzzz";
  
  SQL > commit;
  
  SQL > alter table table_A noparallel;
  
  Please advice,
  
  Thanks in advance.

  user7280060 wrote:
  Hi all

  Is it possible to run delete statement with sub query that removes millions of records in a table that is not partitioned with parallel option?

  SQL > Alter session enable parallel query.

  SQL > Alter session enable parallel dml.

  SQL > alter table table_A parallel 5;

  SQL > delete the table_A where colA = "zzzz";

  SQL > commit;

  SQL > alter table table_A noparallel;

  Please advice,

  Thanks in advance.

  Yes

• Parallel queries on non partitioned tables

  I'm using the 11g database.
  
  I have a table that is partitioned on column a flag (Y and N), as of now all of the values of this column is Y, while values exist on the one parition while the other partition is empty.
  
  We use the NAS with RAID storage. If the content of the files is distributed on disks. In this case the parallel requests will be of no use. We use 2 quad core processors, so I guess that according to oracle documentation that parallelism can be set to 16 (8 cores * 2 (slaves for each carrot)).
  
  My question is since the table isn't actually paritioned parallelism will be of no use here?
  Because the data is distributed parallel slaves will be able to access content from multiple disks at the same time without expectations?
  
  Published by: souad on November 26, 2009 13:44

  Oracle is not clear how many disks is underlying file system.

  Parallelism can be used even on a single disc, even if the table is not partitioned. That is to say, there is no prohibition or internal control prevents you specify parallelism as a hint or a table / index attribute.
  However, if it will be useful really depends on many factors:
  a. how well the e/s flow performs
  (b) the effects of the other sessions at the same time do I/O
  c. the number of blocks that really needs to be read
  d. If you have enough CPU cores and cycles to manage parallelism
  etc.

  Hemant K Collette

• Partitioned table of LOB - àen SECUREFILE?

  Dear administrators,

  My version of DB - 11.1.0.7

  I need to convert storage LOB in BASIC NAVIGATION (and also to enable compression Adv LOB) on a partitioned table (Hash, 64 partitions). Table of the LOB chunk size size - 8 GB, segment - 1.2 to

  I am familiar with dbms_redef for these conversions on non partitioned tables. I know too, redefine a LOB table partitions. But is there a way to achieve BASIC SECUREFILE conversion on a table partitioned using the DBMS_REDEF?

  I have not found much info on this on oracle docs or other sources on the internet. Nobody don't know or don't know of this process? Thanks for your help.

  Post edited by: DBA112

  orclz > create table lobtab store (c2 c1 and number, clob) lob (c2) as partition by hash (c1) partitions 4 basicfile;

  Table created.

  orclz > create table inttab store (c2 c1 and number, clob) lob (c2) as securefile partition by hash (c1) partitions 4;

  Table created.

  orclz > alter table lobtab add constraint primary key lpk (c1);

  Modified table.

  orclz > insert into lobtab values(1,'abc');

  1 line of creation.

  orclz > dbms_redefinition.start_redef_table (user, 'lobtab', 'inttab') exec.

  PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.

  orclz > dbms_redefinition.finish_redef_table (user, 'lobtab', 'inttab') exec.

  PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.

  orclz >

• Create no partition Table partitioning

  Dear all,

  I have a table that is not partition, and it has about 20 G data... If I want that table with say DATE_M partition column

  Please can anyone suggest the best way to do it.

  Thank you

  To create a partitioned table

  (1) you must make a backup of the existing one you can take expdp or DEC

  (2) remove the table and create the same table now with partitions (a minimum score is required)

  you want a range of ex-based partition if you use a date column

  (3) loading data from the previous table into the new partitioned table, either by DEC or impdp, the inserts will be automatically in their respective partitions and you don't mention explicitly.

  Their is no other possible way to partition a non partitioned table, you can do than workarounds to minimize the downtime of the table trying different ways to load data into the partitioned table.

  You can use the enable row movement clause of create table and also use local indexes for easy maintenance partition.

• Order by in a partitioned table

  Hi all

  I recently list partitioned table. After the partition, the existing query result was completely different from that of a non-partitioned table.

  CREATE TABLE 'BALANCE_TMP '.

  ("BRANCHID" VARCHAR2 (10 CHAR) NOT NULL,)

  VARCHAR2 (1 CHAR) 'ACCOUNTTYPE' NOT NULL,

  VARCHAR2 (20 CHAR) 'ACCOUNTID' NOT NULL,

  "BUSINESSDATE" DATE NOT NULL,

  'BALANCETYPE' VARCHAR2 (1 CHAR) NOT NULL,

  ("BALANCE" NUMBER (18.3) NOT NULL)

  LIST PARTITION (BRANCHID)

  (

  PARTITION bal_100 VALUES ("100")

  PARTITION bal_101 VALUES ('101')

  PARTITION bal_102 VALUES ('102')

  );

  The query:

  SELECT * OF balance b WHERE ROWNUM < = 1 AND BranchID = '100' AND

  AccountType = 'N' AND AccountID = "100999999613USD" AND BusinessDate <= May 12, 2014 ' AND

  BalanceType = 'A' ORDER BY BusinessDate DESC

  "The account has dates of business March 12, 2003 '-may 12, 2014. The SQL above on partitioned table gives me the folder that has the date of the company March 12, 2013 "and when partitioned may 12, 2014".

  Please let me know what I'm missing here. I'm assuming that partitioning atleast, in this case, is transparent to the SQL code.

  1543042 wrote:

  The same SQL on a non-partitioned table gives me the results expected is the last album of businessdate. On the partitioned table version, it gives me a record earlier.

  I believe you. Most likely date column is indexed. Optimizer decides to use the SORTED INDEX RANGE SCAN and first rank is rank of more recent date. That's why you get the desired result. But it's only because you're lucky optimizer chose a plan where the last line is read first. It is a time bomb which had sooner or later go off.  And that's exactly what happened with the partitioned table. Optimizer realized account of the table is partitioned and probably the use parallel execution plan. Now you have several slave process every single partition handling and using the INDEX RANGE SCAN SORTED for that. So each slave will get the last row in a respective score but then master process will choose one of them when applying ROWNUM<= 1="" and="" here="" you="" are="" at="" the="" mercy="" of="" which="" row="" will="" it="" be.="" and,="" as="" you="" already="" know,="" you="" didn't="">

  SY.

• Insert, Update, Delete on a partition table not even at a time

  Hello
  I have a non-partitioned table on which inserts, updates and deletes come at the same time due to which I am facing problem of contention.
  What would be the ideal solutions to solve my problem (deletion conflict.)
  
  Thank you
  Badin

  Can you give us more details on the "problem of contention"? This could mean a very large number of different things.

  You have different sessions simultaneously update the same row in the table, for example? If so, you probably need to look at the architecture of the application to avoid multiple sessions to the same line at the same time setting, or you would need to look at the data model to avoid multiple sessions to update the same line at the same time setting.

  But there could be dozens of other kinds of claim that you could talk.

  Justin

• Adding a column to a partitioned table.

  I have a table that is partitioned (monthly, based on a date column). There are 13 partitions - twelve more a current previous months, and we ride every month.
  
  We want to add a column to the table. Is there something special about adding a column to a partitioned table, or is it like any other ALTER TABLE... ADD...?

  Raindog wrote:
  I have a table that is partitioned (monthly, based on a date column). There are 13 partitions - twelve more a current previous months, and we ride every month.

  We want to add a column to the table. Is there something special about adding a column to a partitioned table, or is it like any other ALTER TABLE... ADD...?

  There is nothing else a simple non partitioned tables. Easy to use "" alter table add ".

• Can I create an index on a partitioned table bitmap?

  Can I create an index on a partitioned table bitmap?

  Yes, you can. But an index on a partitioned table bitmap must be a local index.
  Image bitmap index on non partitioned tables cannot be partitioned.

• Conversion table of Partition Non-Partition and vice versa

  Hello
  
  I followed the method of Partition to Partition and vice versa conversion table below. Please suggest is here
  any other altrnative methods available to accomplish the same thing.
  
  Conversion table of partition table partitions. Export data, drop the table, create the table with partitions and
  import data into the same table, now, the data is organized with Partitions.
  
  Conversion table of partition table non-partition. Export data, drop the table, create the table without partitions and
  import data into the same table, now, the data are organized without Partitions.
  
  Thank you.

  Google "oracle Exchange partition".

• Partition table / no entry of safe mode

  HERE'S MY QUESTION:

  I'M TRYING TO RECOVER MY XP DESKTOP COMPUTER. WHENEVER I TRY not to enter MY "SAFE MODE" VIA THE XP CD I GET NO PASSAGE. NORMALLY I CAN GO THROUGH LOG BUT I'VE NOW DAMAGED A PARTITION. I USED THE HELP FILE (FIXMBR) HERE IS THE MESSAGE I HAVE,

  * THIS COMPUTER SEEMS TO HAVE A NON STANDARD OR INVALID MASTER BOOT RECORD *.

  FIXMBR may damage your partition tables if you continue (of course I did). This could cause all of your scores on the current hard disk to become inaccessible.

  If you have problems to access your drive, DO NOT CONTINUE (of course I did)

  Are you sure you want to write a new MBR?       (of course I checked yes)

  Then... If I'm screwed?   I have to buy a new hard drive?   I can solve this problem?  Can I use the old as a ghost player to get my files?

  HELP ME OB 1... YOUR MY ONLY HOPE THOMAS

  Hi Thomas,

  ·         Are able to connect in normal mode?

  ·         What happens when you try to connect in safe mode?

  ·         You get the error message?

  I suggest you to run the disk check to check for possible errors.

  How to perform disk error checking in Windows XP

  http://support.Microsoft.com/kb/315265

  Note: If bad sectors are found in the hard drive, then it could try to fix this particular sector. If you have any data on that, it can get lost.