Size of the index

Similar Questions

• ORA-1683 cannot extend index - and too many size of the Index.

  Hello
  
  I took "ORA-1683: impossible to extend the index TS001." Partition TEMP_PK P20110925 of 64 in the TS001_TEMP_I_ tablespace 'in the alert.log. You can find system information on below;
  Size of the index = 140 GB (it's too big, I am open to any suggestion for the reduction of the size).
  Table size = 600 GB
  OS disk percentage is 85% usage.
  
  Thus, our performance very slowly. How can I solve our problems?
  
  
  Thank you...

  perhaps already reached TS001_temp_index.dbf can use max, you check?

  Select file_name, bytes/1024/1024, user_bytes/1024/1024, maxbytes/1024 CanGrow in dba_temp_files;

• Can merge increase in size of the index?

  Hello
  I'm trying to understand how changes in the use of space after coalesce an index.
  I use Tom Kyte show_space procedure.
  DB is 9.2.0.8.
  

  before Coalesce:
  Unformatted Blocks .....................               0
  FS1 Blocks (0-25)  .....................               0
  FS2 Blocks (25-50) .....................           1,811
  FS3 Blocks (50-75) .....................               0
  FS4 Blocks (75-100).....................               0
  Full Blocks        .....................           2,969
  Total Blocks............................           4,864
  Total Bytes.............................      39,845,888
  Total MBytes............................              38
  Unused Blocks...........................               0
  Unused Bytes............................               0
  Last Used Ext FileId....................             149
  Last Used Ext BlockId...................       2,979,081
  Last Used Block.........................             128
   
   
  After Coalesce
  Unformatted Blocks .....................               0
  FS1 Blocks (0-25)  .....................               0
  FS2 Blocks (25-50) .....................           4,142
  FS3 Blocks (50-75) .....................               0
  FS4 Blocks (75-100).....................               0
  Full Blocks        .....................             638
  Total Blocks............................           4,864
  Total Bytes.............................      39,845,888
  Total MBytes............................              38
  Unused Blocks...........................               0
  Unused Bytes............................               0
  Last Used Ext FileId....................             149
  Last Used Ext BlockId...................       2,979,081
  Last Used Block.........................             128

  Look like only two values changed:
  before:
  FS2 Blocks (25-50)... 1 811
  
  After:
  FS2 Blocks (25-50)... 4 142
  
  front
  Complete blocks... 2 969
  
  After:
  Complete blocks... 638
  
  So, we've got several blocks 25-50% free space
  and less complete blocks.
  And it's strange, how we can have less complete blocks after merger?
  
  Second question is there a reason my index may grow after the merger, when that would happen?
  
  Please explain :).
  Concerning
  GregG

  You can also read http://richardfoote.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/index-rebuild-vs-coalesce-vs-shrink-space-pigs-3-different-ones/

  Concerning
  Karan

• total area of the indexes vs the table

  I'm a relatively new to oracle...
  I've seen sometimes in large databases that the total size of the index of dba_segments is generally higher than that of the table on which they are made.
  Is the structure of the leaves and the number of columns in the index, the main reasons only why the size of the index is greater than that of the tables on which they are made?
  
  
  Can someone help me with the exact reasons for why the size of the index is sometimes greater than that of the tables on which they are made?

  Anthony wrote:

  Can someone help me with the exact reasons for why the size of the index is sometimes greater than that of the tables on which they are made?

  There are several reasons why this can occur, including:

  -Columns in the table once while the same column can appear in several index
  -Index need to include storage for the ROWID
  -The index generally have a greater amount of free space as tables

  See you soon

  Richard Foote
  http://richardfoote.WordPress.com/

• the font size for the page numbers in the index

  I use 10 FM, creating an index for a book.  I can adjust the font size for the text down to 9 points, but page numbers are stuck at 12 points.  I can do 9 point individually, but they return to 12 points, when I save the book.  What should I do to get page numbers to stay in the point 9?    The same thing happens if I use the character or paragraph Designer.

  Earle Fox

  In the ... IX.fm file, what are the attributes of the tag IndexIXpara font by default ?

  No chance that they have been rejected by a character Format or a simple substitution of element prototype <$pagenum> on The IX reference Page?

• The Index file size has increased after the change from 0 to #Missing. -&gt; ETL is SLOW

  The size of my Index and Page files are listed below before making changes to my level information lowest zeros for #missing.
  
  Index 4,161,568,768 KB
  Page 18,088,920,784 KB
  
  The size of my Index and Page files are listed below after making changes to my lowest level of zeros for #missing information.
  
  Index 7,249,969,152 KB
  Page 19,160,917,392 KB.
  
  (There was some added so additional information to increase the page files)
  
  What's causing my ETL to slow down?
  
  My ETL process took about 10 minutes, now it takes about 40 minutes?
  
  Could be the cause?
  
  If so, how can I fix this problem?
  
  Thank you

  You can run the restructuring in the Regional service menu or you can use MaxL Alter database appname.dbname force restructuring

• RH7 - size of the font of contents, Index, search

  Hello group,

  I work in RH7 version HTML version 7.00.145.  WebHelp, we use for our published entries.  Is it possible to increase the size of the font in the table of contents, index and search (not the buttons - the actual text)?  Any help would be appreciated.  Thank you

  TW

  Hello

  The easy way is to open the skin editor and go to the tab Navigation. At the bottom of the tab, you can set the font family, size, and color of the navigation pane, including the index, search, and glossary.

  If you want a little more control, say the different font sizes to the table of contents, Index, or search pane, you can change the font size in the output files.

  Take a bow

  Willam

• Size of the partition and Index Local

  Hi all

  Database information: 11.2.0.3 64-bit Linux. It is a 3 RAC Cluster node.

  I recently partitioned a Parent and child tables as PARTITION of REFERENCE set. The parent table has been RANGE - partitioned. The first partition is on an integer column and the beaches are 0-1000, 10001-2000, 20001-30000 and so on. The secondary partition is on a date and it is partitioned for each quarter.

  I created a local index as follows (faullt2vehicle, offboard_load_date, record_type, Column_Y).

  Here's an example query I will carry out, where the date is covering 2 secondary partitions

  select  * from gets_tool_Fault t where fault2vehicle                                      = 12195
  and offboard_load_date                                 BETWEEN TO_DATE('2015-04-01 00:00:00', 'yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss')
  AND TO_DATE('2015-07-01 00:00:00', 'yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss')
  AND record_type                                        IN('FLT','STP','HC','EGU','EOAEQP','CEL')
  

  When I generate the plan explain below is the output

  Plan hash value: 2702285198
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  | Id  | Operation                           | Name               | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     | Pstart| Pstop |
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                    |                    |   386 | 76428 |   244   (0)| 00:00:03 |       |       |
  |   1 |  PARTITION RANGE SINGLE             |                    |   386 | 76428 |   244   (0)| 00:00:03 |     2 |     2 |
  |   2 |   PARTITION RANGE ITERATOR          |                    |   386 | 76428 |   244   (0)| 00:00:03 |     7 |     8 |
  |   3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY LOCAL INDEX ROWID| GETS_TOOL_FAULT    |   386 | 76428 |   244   (0)| 00:00:03 |    10 |    18 |
  |*  4 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN                | GETS_TOOL_FAULT_C7 |   386 |       |     7   (0)| 00:00:01 |    10 |    18 |
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
  ---------------------------------------------------
  
     4 - access("FAULT2VEHICLE"=12195 AND "OFFBOARD_LOAD_DATE">=TO_DATE(' 2015-04-01 00:00:00', 'syyyy-mm-dd 
                hh24:mi:ss') AND "OFFBOARD_LOAD_DATE"<=TO_DATE(' 2015-07-01 00:00:00', 'syyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss'))
         filter("RECORD_TYPE"='CEL' OR "RECORD_TYPE"='EGU' OR "RECORD_TYPE"='EOAEQP' OR "RECORD_TYPE"='FLT' OR 
                "RECORD_TYPE"='HC' OR "RECORD_TYPE"='STP')
  
  

  If you observe the optimizer is currently to identify the partition, and then the secondary partition, but what is confusing to me, this is why the restricted PREMISES index scan scans all secondary partitions for a given partition. The partition should be not even as a value from PARTITION RANGE ITERATOR of 7 and 8.

  Interestingly, when I provide a date range which is in single partition the pruning is happening correctly
  
  Plan hash value: 3457799067
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  | Id  | Operation                           | Name               | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     | Pstart| Pstop |
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                    |                    |     1 |   197 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |       |       |
  |   1 |  PARTITION RANGE SINGLE             |                    |     1 |   197 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |     2 |     2 |
  |   2 |   PARTITION RANGE SINGLE            |                    |     1 |   197 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |     7 |     7 |
  |*  3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY LOCAL INDEX ROWID| GETS_TOOL_FAULT    |     1 |   197 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |    16 |    16 |
  |*  4 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN                | GETS_TOOL_FAULT_N1 |     1 |       |     3   (0)| 00:00:01 |    16 |    16 |
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
  ---------------------------------------------------
  
     3 - filter("RECORD_TYPE"='CEL' OR "RECORD_TYPE"='EGU' OR "RECORD_TYPE"='EOAEQP' OR "RECORD_TYPE"='FLT' OR 
                "RECORD_TYPE"='HC' OR "RECORD_TYPE"='STP')
     4 - access("FAULT2VEHICLE"=12195 AND "OFFBOARD_LOAD_DATE">=TO_DATE(' 2015-04-01 00:00:00', 'syyyy-mm-dd 
                hh24:mi:ss') AND "OFFBOARD_LOAD_DATE"<=TO_DATE(' 2015-06-01 00:00:00', 'syyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss'))
  

  Thank you

  Jayadeep

  1. your index (faullt2vehicle, offboard_load_date, record_type, Column_Y), your query has a predicate based on a beach on the second column in this index, which means that the order of the index that must be examined is dictated by this predicate and each row in the range must be considered (filtered) to check the third predicate.  Basic guideline on the column in the index you are ordering for more effective use: If you have columns where predicates are always equal put these columns at the beginning of the index, the columns where predicates are usually based on a beach go towards the end. You seem to have been misled by reviews 'the prefix local index' stick to your two columns of partitioning at the front of your index - which should NOT be an automatic choice for the local index: see this note ( https://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/prefixed/ ) comments that follow and OTN article it is linked to.

  2 since you have two indexes that start the same way (this goes with the local prefix again) you made easy for the optimizer to choose the index (for you) is clearly evil. That's why behind the choice of the optimizer is probably another example of an issue that I spoke a few days ago: Re: Composite index + map selection N1 your index is probably greater than the index of C7, and the order of the entries in the C7 index probably makes the data much more dispersed that it really is (i.e. high clustering_factor).

  Concerning

  Jonathan Lewis

  PS (update):

  If there are many rows for each fault_id, then you must create an index from fault_id with 'compress 1' (or compress N if the first columns of the index N are repetitive).

  When dealing with range partitions do not forget that the high value partition is never reached in the document, do so based in the form "date_col BETWEEN date1 and date2", use the form "date_col > = dateX and date_col»< datey"="" or="" you="" may="" find="" that="" you="" are="" accessing="" one="" more="" partition="" than="" you="" hope="" to,="" and="" in="" some="" cases="" that="" may="" mean="" "multiple"="" (i.e.="" 2)="" when="" you="" were="" expecting="" 1="" (and="" the="" optimizer="" is="" much="" better="" at="" estimating="" costs="" for="" a="" single="">

• What are the data size of the buffer on PX1394E - 3 50

  Hello

  I bought this drive a few days ago and I'm a little confused on the
  the size of the data buffer. The box indicates 16 MB, Toshiba web page says 8 MB, etc...

  Nobody knows, what are the data buffer size of this model?
  Is there a SW or the request to meet with whom?

  BTW, great car, fast, noise, however, extremely when it comes to finding large files.

  Thank you
  Francisco

  Hello

  I have lurked around a bit and it seems that your drive has buffer of 16 MB that is absolutely definitely sure. To check the details of your computer, you can use the tool "Sisoft Sandra". You can download [url href = http://www.sisoftware.net/index.html?dir=&location=downandbuy&langx=en&a=] here [/ URL].

  After download, just install it and you will get all information about your computer, as the size of the buffer of your external hard drive.

  Welcome them

• Questions about to determine the size of the array of data storage with flexibility

  I try to use the CVI function below to load data from .csv file to the table that I was intending to use later:

  filereturnvalue = FileSelectPopup ("c:\\Users\\Desktop\\FileDirectory", "*.csv", "", 'Select the data file', VAL_LOAD_BUTTON, 0, 0, 1, 0, LoadFilePath);

  FileToArray (DATAArray, VAL_CHAR, LoadFilePath, MaxDataSize, 1, VAL_GROUPS_TOGETHER, VAL_GROUPS_AS_COLUMNS, VAL_ASCII);

  For the data table "predetermined", it is quite straightforward, because the size of the table is already set.  However, I wonder if there is anyway I could use CVI directly import data and determine the size of the array on the fly?  Which means that the user need not know the length of the data, and it could be determined then to import the file.

  Hello

  for ASCII files, you can do so in any first read the file and counting the newline characters, something like:

  int file_handle;
  int index;
  int size = 0;
  char line_buffer [80];

  If (OpenFile (...) > 0)
  {
  While (ReadLine (...) > 0)
  {
  size ++;
  }
  }
  CloseFile(f) (file_handle);

  This way you can determine the number of rows you have, but you must have an idea of how long a line may be, one number per line or 32000 because you must specify the size of your line_buffer.

  In the next step you analyserions monotube for occurrence of your column separator (say a ;) to determine the number of columns (separators found + 1).

• How to dynamically control the index of an array

  Hello

  In fact, I have two request:

  1.

  I want to create a table with different size? According to the user request!

  So I would like to be able to set the index of the table, which allows the user to have his picture with a different line is array (1 d)!

  On my test will affect the number of line by another application (a loop used in another part of my request)!

  2 / is it possible to have two loops 'for' this command at the same time, a loop of the sequence (with indexation)?

  TX

  
  

• How to read the size of the array, eliminating empty values

  I have an array of size 2 X 10. In the first column, the elements are 10 and in the second column, the elements are only 6. If I use the size of the array and the size of the second column of the index, the value given is 10 which is supposed to be 6. I noticed that it creates null or empty values in the column for the other four. How can I eliminate empty values, and only get the real sze of the column?

  The column in the index and use search 1 D table for an empty string.  The result should be the number of non-empty strings.  If the result is - 1, use the actual size of table.

• What is the index of modularity?

    Index of modularity In "The Labview Style Book", p 13.
   
       1.1 equation
  Modularity Index = (user # screw / total number of nodes) * 100

  Way?
  

  It is a measure that is the VI Analyzer.  Something to assess quantitatively so your VI is very modular or not.  It looks at the number of under VI used compared to the overall size of the program (including the total number of nodes).  If you use enough of the Subvi, this means that you probably code modular and will have a higher index.  If you put all your code in a large diagram and fail to use Subvi to break it down into smaller modules, then your index of modularity will be close to zero.

• How can I increase the size of the D drive?

  I have a HP a6009n with a 250g HD. The size of defined system recovery is 7,67 and now full. Any suggestions?

  Normally, your D: drive is the recovery Partition, that the manufacturer put here for your computer to put it back to factory in the event of a system Crash.

  It is not to save you anything and it does not compress and/or the Index, or have the System Restore enabled for it!.

  Everything you have installed or stored on D:, remove it with a lot of attention, stop indexing, unzip and leave him alone.

  You are supposed to have done the D: recovery disks, in case of hard drive failure.

  Ask the manufacturer, how to make
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  http://www.Vistax64.com/tutorials/95398-disk-management-shrink-partition.html

  Read about disk management.

  If your installation is followed by C: followed same D: to C: or D:, you can't shrink C: and nail it on D:.

  You can only delete D:, shrink C: and then make a new larger Partition to the unallocated space.

  See you soon.

  Mick Murphy - Microsoft partner

• setSelectedIndex (index) on a ListField call does not set the focus to the index.

  Hi all

  I have a ListField I show in a popup. When the listField is displayed, the focus is not set to the game past index.

  Can someone please tell me what is missing here:

  ListField choiceList = new ListField() {
      protected boolean navigationClick(int status, int time) {
      int index = this.getSelectedIndex();
      fieldChangeNotify(0);
      FSApplication.getUiApplication().popScreen(FSApplication.getUiApplication().getActiveScreen());
      return super.navigationClick(status, time);
  }
  choiceList.setChangeListener((FieldChangeListener) uiFilter);
  choiceList.setCallback(new PopUpListCallback());
  add(choiceList);
  choiceList.setSelectedIndex(6);
  choiceList.setSize(choice.length, _selectedIndex);
  choiceList.setVisualState(VISUAL_STATE_ACTIVE | VISUAL_STATE_FOCUS);
  

  set the size and choices first, then the selected index.
  If this does not work, try invokelater for the index.