Split hash partition.

Similar Questions

• Adding a Partition to a range-Hash partitioned Table

  Hello

  I created the composite partition table (RANGE-HASH).  Oracle: 11.2, OS: HP UX

  CREATE TABLE 'XYZ '. "" TABLE_XYZ.

  (

  ----

  VARCHAR2 (54) "PROFILE" DEFAULT "000000000000000000' ENABLE NON-NULL"

  NUMBER (21.7) "CREATED_ON" DEFAULT 0 ENABLE NOT NULL,.

  ----

  )

  PARTITION BY RANGE

  (

  CREATED_ON

  )

  SUBPARTITION BY HASH

  (

  VIEW PROFILE

  )

  SUBPARTITION TEMPLATE

  (

  SUBPARTITION SP1 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION TABLESPACE PSAPISU SP2,

  SUBPARTITION SP3 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP4 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP5 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP6 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP7 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP8 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP9 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP10 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP11 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP12 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP13 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP14 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP15 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP16 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP17 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP18 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP19 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP20 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP21 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP22 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP23 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP24 TABLESPACE PSAPISU,

  SUBPARTITION SP25 TABLESPACE PSAPISU

  )

  (

  CREATED_ON_OCP01 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20090101000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP02 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20090401000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP03 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20090701000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP04 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20091001000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP05 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20100101000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP06 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20100401000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP07 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20100701000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP08 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20101001000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP09 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20110101000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP10 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20110401000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP11 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20110701000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP12 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20111001000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP13 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20120101000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP14 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20120401000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP15 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20120701000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP16 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20121001000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP17 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20130101000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP18 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20130401000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP19 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20130701000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP20 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20131001000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP21 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20140101000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP22 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20140401000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP23 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20140701000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP24 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20141001000000).

  CREATED_ON_OCP25 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20150101000000).

  PARTITION CREATED_ON_OCPMAX VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE)

  )

  TABLESPACE "PSAPISU" ENABLE LINE MOVEMENT;

  Now, I am trying to add the new partition but becomes under errors:

  ALTER TABLE SAPISU. ADD PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20150401000000) CREATED_ON_OCP26 ZTMD_300_VERS_MANAGE

  *

  ERROR on line 1:

  ORA-14074: partition bound must gather greater than that of the last partition

  ERROR on line 1:

  ORA-14018: partition bound list contains too few elements

  I tried the SYNTAX mentioned by Oracle DOC, still getting error. Partitioned table and index management

  Could if it you please let me know, what is the exact syntax that I should follow?

  See you soon

  Sameer

  CREATED_ON_OCPMAX PARTITION SPLIT THAN (MAXVALUE)

  That don't mean to 'divide' the MAXVALUE partition.

  You cannot split a partition that contains the values of A, B, C, D, MAXVALUE to MAXVALUE; that makes no sense. ERROR on line 1:

  ORA-14080: partition cannot be split along the specified high limit

  That exception is to say you can't use MAXVALUE upper limit. You must use a value that is actually IN the partition.

  Go back and look at the definition of your partitions:

  CREATED_ON_OCP25 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20150101000000).

  PARTITION CREATED_ON_OCPMAX VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE)

  See which ends with: "VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE)? MAXVALUE is not IN the score; This is the upper limit of the partition.

  Divide certain value > '20150101000000' and LESS THAN MAXVALUE;

  So if you try to create a partition for OCP26 you can use '20160101000000'.

  CREATE TABLE PART_TEST2)
  VARCHAR2 (54) DEFAULT PROFILE "000000000000000000' ENABLE NOT NULL,
  CREATED_ON NUMBER (21.7) DEFAULT 0 ENABLE NOT NULL
  )
  PARTITION BY RANGE (CREATED_ON)
  (
  CREATED_ON_OCP24 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20141001000000).
  CREATED_ON_OCP25 PARTITION VALUES LESS THAN (20150101000000).
  PARTITION CREATED_ON_OCPMAX VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE)
  )

  ALTER table split partition created_on_ocpmax part_test2
  to (20160101000000) into (partition, partition CREATED_ON_OCPMAX created_on_ocp26)

• Hash partitioning

  Hello

  I have a question around hash partitioning.

  I create a table 'Daily' in the table of 'Hand' containing only the data of the last day. Recording of hash are based on the Type of Transaction, and I know there are 8 Types of separate transactions for this table, so I create 8 Partitions.

  So, the question is what happens if a new Transaction Type is introduced? Which partition will contain the new Type of Transaction? Is there a better way to create this table, so he can adjust to new Types of Transaction dynamically?

  Code below:

  CREATE THE USER TABLE. THE DAY DATA OF TABLESPACE IN PARALLEL (DEGREE 8) HASH PARTITION (TRANS_TYPE) (TABLESPACE PARTITION1 PARTITION DATA, DATA TABLESPACE PARTITION2 PARTITION, PARTITION PARTITION3 TABLESPACE DATA, PARTITION PARTITION4 TABLESPACE DATA, DATA TABLESPACE PARTITION5 PARTITION, PARTITION PARTITION6 TABLESPACE DATA, PARTITION PARTITION7 TABLESPACE DATA, DATA OF THE PARTITION PARTITION8 TABLESPACE)

  IN SELECT / * + PARALLEL(MAIN_TB,8) * / * FROM CDRUSER. MAIN_TB

  WHEN trunc (trans_date) > = trunc (sysdate - 1).

  AND trunc (trans_date) < trunc (sysdate);

  Concerning

  Stephan

  Hello user16...

  The value that comes from your partition key will be the input to a hash function that determines that your recording in which partition will be written.

  If you have a new value then it causes no problem-> records owned by this new value will be moved to a hash partition always. -> In which one? You can't say it in advance. There is a hash algorithm in oracle.

  Hash partitioning is a technique that is good, if you have a unique key column (or more - composite unique index) and you want to distribute files between multiple partitions.

  The question is: you want to filter your queries on the partitioning key in the future? ->, You can not benefit from the size of the partition (partition elimination)

  But if you use a single key as a key partitioning in this case it makes no sense to talk about the size of the partition.
  

  If you want to create partitions of distinct values that will be filtered in where clauses

  AND you want to access only the lines in a complete analysis that belong to a single value of the partitioning key, so I recommend the use of partitioning to the LIST.

  Reason: In an analysis complete (Group by, Distinct etc.) it may happen that rows many partitioning key values will be stored in a partition if new values are added in the future in this case, you will need to analyze the lines that would be unnecessary.

  But it depends on what your needs are.

  You can read about this more in the oracle doc: partitioning in the Data Warehouses

• Use name hash partitions?

  Oracle 11.2.0.3
  
  I saw models in the doc, but all examples have been around list partitions.
  
  Instead of using the names of system, I wanted to name under partitions in a model. It is more for convenience and is not an absolute requirement.
  
  Leave as I have 16 secondary hash partitions. I would like to see their name.
  
  1A
  1 B
  1 C
  
  ...
  
  Date in next function partition
  2A
  2B
  2 C
  
  and so on...
  
  I think that a few slices of Oracle names using a sequence, I can use a module to identify. That would just be a little more convenient.

  -I have no trouble finding an example at all.

  Just open the VLDB and partitioning Guide and sought a 'model' and he was there
  http://docs.Oracle.com/CD/B28359_01/server.111/b32024/part_admin.htm#i1106387

  >
  With the help of models Subpartition to describe Composite Tables partitioned
  . . .
  The following example creates a partitioned table using a subpartition by hash range model:

  CREATE TABLE emp_sub_template (NUMBER, empname varchar (32), rank NUMBER deptno)

  PARTITION OF RANGE (deptno) SUBPARTITION BY HASH (empname)

  SUBPARTITION TEMPLATE

  (SUBPARTITION a TABLESPACE ts1)

  SUBPARTITION b TABLESPACE ts2,

  SUBPARTITION c TABLESPACE ts3,

  SUBPARTITION d TABLESPACE ts4

  )

  (PARTITION p1 VALUES LESS THAN (1000))

  PARTITION p2 VALUES LESS THAN (2000).

  PARTITION p3 VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE)

  );

• Range-Hash verssu Hash Partitioning purely report performance

  Hello
  
  We evaluate different strategies and whereas hash and range-hash partitioning.
  
  While the range would give us additional cleaning options, is by far out up to priority for the reports to run as fast as possible.
  
  Central Oraxcle 11.2.0.3 in fact warehouse using large table estaimte will be 500 GB, surrogarte key star schema and the key to the substitution of the largest dimesnion partioned-hash with the surrogate key.
  
  According to your experience, the side purley perfomance queruy someone found the hash is significantly greater than parrtition by range of dates, then under hash partition.
  
  Queries do not use partition size.
  
  Greater hope of qwe benfit to win partitioning uses a parallel query + score-recognition of join between columns of hash-partitioedn (on the facts and the great dimesnion table.
  
  Thank you

  >
  We evaluate different strategies and whereas hash and range-hash partitioning.

  While the range would give us additional cleaning options, is by far out up to priority for the reports to run as fast as possible.

  Central Oraxcle 11.2.0.3 in fact warehouse using large table estaimte will be 500 GB, surrogarte key star schema and the key to the substitution of the largest dimesnion partioned-hash with the surrogate key.

  According to your experience, the side purley perfomance queruy someone found the hash is significantly greater than parrtition by range of dates, then under hash partition.

  Queries do not use partition size.

  Greater hope of qwe benfit to win partitioning uses a parallel query + score-recognition of join between columns of hash-partitioedn (on the facts and the great dimesnion table.
  >
  Objectives statements in this thread have some of the same problems and missing information that was your other thread.
  Re: Compress all the existing table ain dat

  So I would say the same thing, that I suggested it with minor changes.

  You give us your preferred solution instead of us giving that information about the PROBLEM you're trying to solve.

  You must first focus on the problem:

  1. define the problem - indicate the desired objectives
  2. identify the options and resources available to address the problem
  3. Select one or several small, these options for assessment earn and tests.
  4 testing of possible solutions
  5. Select and implement what you consider the "best" solution
  6. monitor the results
  >
  We evaluate different strategies and whereas hash and range-hash partitioning.
  >
  Why? 1. What is the problem that you are trying to address and what are your desired goals? Partitioning is a solution - what's the problem?
  >
  While the range would give us additional cleaning options, is by far out up to priority for the reports to run as fast as possible.
  >
  Great! Do you really need or even want options housekeeping? If so, which? Don't you bulk loads? Down periodically the data? How many times? Monthly? Every year?

  What is the relationship, in your analysis between partitioning and your reports running "as fast as possible? Give us some details. Why do you partitioning in general (range or range-hash in particular) will somehow make your reports run faster? What kind of reports? The amount of data they have access to produce? The amount of data returned in fact? How many times reports do work? How much of a problem reports are now? Generally meet their SLA? Or they RARELY meet their SLA?

  Partitioning is not a remedy of performance for badly written queries. Often the most effective way to improve the performance of reports is to resolve any issues the queries themselves may have or add appropriate indexes. You have exhausted these possibilities? Have you created and examined the execution plans for your key reports? That shows this analysis?
  >
  According to your experience, the side purley perfomance queruy someone found the hash is significantly greater than parrtition by range of dates, then under hash partition.
  >
  For a partitioned table, all data are stored in individual segments; a segment for each partition.

  For a partitioned table Sub all data are stored in the individual segments; a segment for each subpartition. There is NO data stored at the partition level.

  The type of partitioning (versus range-hash hash) and the type of data (partition versus subpartion) logic has no relevance in terms of performance.

  Performance of the queries are directly proportional the number of segments that should be available, the type of access (via the index or full scan) and the size of the segment (including the amount of data).

  The number of segments that should be available depends on the ability of the Oracle to prune partitions during the analysis statically or dynamically at run time.
  >
  Queries do not use partition size.
  >
  Partitioning then generally won't be valuable performance but only for maintenance operations.
  >
  Greater hope of qwe benfit to win partitioning uses a parallel query + score-recognition of join between columns of hash-partitioedn (on the facts and the great dimesnion table.
  >
  Please explain why you think that partitioning will provide this benefit.

  Oracle PARALLEL query very well on non-partitioned tables without using partition-wise joins. The latest version of Oracle also has a DBMS_PARALLEL_EXECUTE package that provides additional features for the realization of PARALLEL operations for many of the use cases more.

  Partitioning lends itself to a natural method of CHUNKing based on the scores/subparts, but that is not necessary to get the benefit of the PARALLEL use. The exception would be if provided partitioning segments that are on different axes or decrease disk IO conflicts.

  Another missing piece of key information are the number and the type of index that needs your reports. Will you be able to use mainly LOCAL partitioned indexes? Global index tend to destroy any maintenance performance that can be learned from partitioning.

• What is this mention of Partition type in the code "HASH Partition".

  Hi team,
  
  Regularly I add news were leaving and secondary partitions at the production table, based on the Date. For example daily data stored in a partition.
  Below is the code I use to add new partitions. I think that this partition called the range.
  
  CREATE TABLE 'owner '. "" TABLE_NAME ".
  ("COLUMN01' VARCHAR2 (4))
  'ACOLUMN02' VARCHAR2 (32) NOT NULL ACTIVATE.
  .
  .
  .
  
  DEFAULT USER_TABLES)
  TABLESPACE "Nom_tablespace".
  PARTITION BY RANGE ("Daily_TIME")
  (PARTITION 'ABC_2008_08_31' VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE (' 2008-08-31 23:59:59 ',')))
  SYYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS ',' NLS_CALENDAR = GREGORIAN '))
  PCTFREE, PCTUSED, INITRANS 40 10 1 MAXTRANS 255
  STORAGE (INITIAL 1048576 NEXT 1048576 MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS 2147483645)
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Now I found the new type of code to the new table created by the development team.
  The code is...
  
  CREATE TABLE 'owner '. "" TABLE_NAME ".
  ("COLUMN01' VARCHAR2 (4))
  'ACOLUMN02' VARCHAR2 (32) NOT NULL ACTIVATE.
  .
  .
  .
  
  DEFAULT USER_TABLES)
  TABLESPACE "Nom_tablespace".
  HASH PARTITION ("ACCOUNT_NUMBER")
  (PARTITION "PART_P01"
  TABLESPACE "tABLESPACE01."
  .
  .
  PARTITION "pART_P13."
  MOVEMENT of LINE ENABLE TABLESPACE "Tabelspace01");
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  There is no code in the new code Table below...
  
  ((PARTITION «ABC_2008_08_31» LES VALEURS INFÉRIEURES QUE (TO_DATE (' 2008-08-31 23:59:59 ','))))
  SYYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS ',' NLS_CALENDAR = GREGORIAN '))
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  SO, I am unable to edit this table to add new left monthly sage.
  
  Please suggest me, how to record data date wise in this table. Also suggest me if not is the Partion LINE or not.
  
  If it is not possible to add new data to partition wise, I will inform the customer.
  
  Thank you and best regards,
  Vincent

  New table use hash partitioning, not range partitioning. You can refer to the Concepts:
  http://docs.Oracle.com/CD/E11882_01/server.112/e25789/schemaob.htm#CNCPT88864

  The key to the new partitioned table is account number, no date, so you cannot partition this table date-wise.

• Table partitioned using the hash partition

  I need to create the table using hash partition and need to specify the number of partitions (for example, 32)
  1. How/where to specify the number of partitions? I checked under "partitioning" tab of the properties of the table, but "system partition" is disabled.
  2. What is the difference between the hash by quantity vs Hash of the list of partitions and which should I use?

  Hello

  To do this, you must set the Partition Type to HASH BY QUANTITY. Then, tab Tablespaces part of hash, you can set the quantity field on HashP to the number of partitions.

  Ownership of the system partition is only enabled if the type of partitioning SYSTEM.
  Hash partition list allows you to add entries in hash Partitions of the Table nsud Partition to set each individual partition.

  David

• Can we have hash partition and list on 2 columns in the same table. How.

  Can we have hash partition and list on 2 columns in the same table. How.
  
  Work on 10g release 2

  # List-Hash is a valid composite partitioning strategy 11 from g.

• Rebuild the range-Hash partitioned local index

  Hi all
  
  We have a table with 400 million records in our dataware House environment. It is partitioned using range-Hash Partitioning composit. He used a global Indexes previously. Last month the global indices have been changed to the index the. Since then, Exchange and index rebuild partition takes twice against the take used previously. From my understanding local index should provide availability high and more usable in the warehouse environment. Please correct me if I'm wrong and give me your suggestion. Also, I'm looking for a good material for the exchange of the partition and Index rebild with locally manage the range-hash partitioned index. Let me know if you know a good link for this...
  
  
  Thanks in advance...

  Dear krmreddy,

  Carefully read the following link and I hope this will guide you;

  http://asktom.Oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0:P11_QUESTION_ID:223318100346512896

  Kind regards.

  Ogan

• need to unpack a hash partitioned table

  I'm working on the database oracle 11.1.0.7 on solaris.
  
  We had problems loading data in compressed tables, so we try to unpack tables and their partitions.
  When I tried to unpacking of a hash partitioned table, I get this error
  
  SQL > alter table move partition SYS_1 sample nocompress;
  ALTER table move partition SYS_1 nocompress sample
  *
  ERROR on line 1:
  ORA-14260: incorrect physical attribute specified for this partition
  
  I am able to move the table, it's just the nocompress option is not working.
  
  SQL > alter table example moving partition SYS_1.
  
  Modified table.
  
  Can't unpack us a hash partitioned table that is compressed?

  You must do this in two steps

  alter table sample modify partition SYS_1 nocompress;
  alter table sample move partition SYS_1;
  

  Best regards

  Maxim

• Possible to Exchange temporary table with composite range-hash partitioned table?

  Hello

  Using oracle 11.2.0.3

  We want to clean up the data in some of our existing partitioned table.

  Afetr updates check spped that is too slow for us.

  Current table is partitioned the inetrval compoiste range-hash table.  Also it is compressed - enabled for compression of basis as well

  An interval of 1 month and 1 partition by month and 4 secondary partitions in the partition of ecah.

  You want to create tenp table with the data of celan and exchange the data in this table in the 'dirty' uisng existing partitions partition exchnage.

  Is this possible?

  The plan is

  1) create temporary table containing data for 1 partition (1 month worth of data)

  (2) clean the data here

  (3) create new temporary table with these specific data which compressed and discovered partitioned with 4 secondary partitions

  (4) table 3 for swap partition dirty using partition excahnge.

  Thaks

  I think that this can be done with a combination of Exchange and Split partition partitions. Prior to Oracle 11 g, only way of redefining tables online was DBMS_REDEFINITION package. Now, you can redefine the use of partitions for Exchange & Split. Check

  http://www.Oracle-base.com/articles/Misc/partitioning-an-existing-table-using-Exchange-partition.php

  Maintenance of Partitions

  Kind regards

• Impossible to split the partition not visible is (C) to a new system - 4 primary partitions

  Hello

  TL; Dr. I'm probably stuck with 4 primary partitions (two WINRE, EFI and (C), and unable to split C on an installation DVD HP fresh system.

  320 HARD drive failed on my G6 2233 HP laptop. I have fitted a replacement for 500 GB and does the following:

  • installed Windows 8 from the HP System Recovery DVD (provided by HP, not recorded by me, new facility)
  • deleted partition recovery with HP Recovery Manager
  • installed all the updates of Windows 8, and updates HP Support Assistant
  • upgrade to 8.1 Windows
  • installed all the updates for Windows 8.1 and updates HP Support Assistant

  Went to the system partition tool, see 4 primary partitions created...

  

  At this point, I was not aware, this can be a problem. I tried to split C as seen on the image. Has not been able to define the desired values (max stood at about two of equal size, because of ummovable files), but this was nothing new for me - on the previous 320 HARD drive that I met the same problem, I could (but COULD) make two of 14xGB were leaving.
  Here I wanted to 120 GB and GB 344.
  Anyway, even with different values I have a mistake in the next step, claiming that it has no place on the HARD drive.

  So I decided to try the EasyUS software, as it has helped me in the past.
  First screen is without any intervention (there are a bunch of weird music here, all created by HP software/operating system).

  
  I could choose to reduce the size of the partition, but the ability to create from unallocated space was not active.

  

  I'm confused. If I'm not mistaken, I shouldn't remove two WINRE and an EFI partition, but I either convert logical partition C (have no idea how, this option only is not active on EasyUS (could do that on my HDD USB drive), or remove one or more of the other primary partitions.)

  Even if I'll find a way to convert logical C, which is safe, and that I should after D creation C back in elementary school?

  I tried to play safe and let the HP/OS software do the work, and they left me with 4 primary partitions...

  OK I found the guide which unfortunately is not sure... Any other ideas?

  http://h30434.www3.HP.com/T5/other-notebook-PC-questions/how-to-REPARTITION-HDD-of-HP-notebook-with-...

  Unfortunately, they seem to have different names... Probably do similar things, but could someone just highlight is the partition EFI HP as mentioned in the guide, tools etc.

  I guess I should, after that installation of Windows 8 and deleting the recovery partition, create a new partition can and upgrade to 8.1... Would solve many problems, but I'm not sure it would work and really do not want to lose more than two days on this...

  I solved the problem with reinstalling Windows 8 from the DVD, and then deleting the partition recovery and at this point to divide the C partition and finnally upgrade to Windows 8.1. It works, and it was the safest, but probably not the best way to solve the isue. Previously I installed Windows 8, deleted the recovery, improved to 8.1 and got 4 primary those linked above.., so that the difference here is divide and distributes itself in the intermediate stage...

  Thank you for your interest and have a good year.

• Hash partition

  Hello
  
  As the hash distributes the lines evenly between partitions, giving partitions approximately the same size, object table has 72444 records
  I created the partitioned table of hash table object.
  
  -SQL > create table test_hash
  partition by hash (namespace) 2
  3 partitions 4
  4 in select * from object;
  
  Table created.
  -----
  
  SQL > select table_name, nom_partition from user_tab_partitions where table_name = 'test_hash ';
  
  TABLE_NAME... NOM_PARTITION
  
  TEST_HASH... SYS_P201
  TEST_HASH... SYS_P202
  TEST_HASH... SYS_P203
  TEST_HASH... SYS_P204
  
  ------
  SQL > select count (*) in test_hash partition (sys_p201).
  
  COUNT (*)
  
  2
  ------
  SQL > select count (*) in test_hash partition (sys_p202).
  
  COUNT (*)
  
  340
  ------
  SQL > select count (*) in test_hash partition (sys_p203).
  
  COUNT (*)
  
  1534
  ------
  SQL > select count (*) in test_hash partition (sys_p204).
  
  COUNT (*)
  
  70568
  ------
  
  Why has he not distributed lines evenly among four partitions? Or is their something else it does. Please explain thanks.

  You misunderstand it. Disrtibution of hash is not random (it is what you are suggesting with "spray everywhere data in partitions"). It is 100% deterministic. Oracle, indeed, determines the score like this:
  Select ora_hash (X, Y) of double;
  where X is the value used as the key of patition and Y is the number of partitions (from scratch). If the values are the same, the partition will be the same. The doc you mention is asusming your key has a disstribution of values.

• partitions for Exchange works only (no movement records to all partitions)

  The use of partitions of exchange to move data from a table that is not partitioned to partitioned table does not move the records of all partitions...

  for example

  Not partitioned table

  create table tab1 as select object_id from user_objects;

  partitioned table
  create table parttab (OBJECT_ID number) partition by hash (object_id)
  (partition p1, partition p2, p3, p4 partition partition);
  
  Exchange
  ALTER table parttab Exchange partition p1 with table tab1 without validation;
  
  ALTER table parttab Exchange partition p2 with table tab1 without validation;
  
  ALTER table parttab Exchange partition p3 with table tab1 without validation;
  
  ALTER table parttab Exchange partition p4 with table tab1 without validation;
  
  Select count (1), "P1" as partnam parttab partition (p1)
  Union
  Select count (1), "P2" as partnam parttab partition (p2)
  Union
  Select count (1), 'P3' as partnam parttab partition (p3)
  Union
  Select count (1), 'P4' as partnam parttab partition (p4)
  order of partnam;

  only P1 is to have the records, other partitions are zero records

  Please suggest

  Thank you

  S

  Thank you Kiss. but now the table will have double right recordings... ?

  y at - it an otherway?

  Another way to do what? Load this HASH partitioned table? Yes - simply INSERT in it as PaulHorth suggested.

  What you're trying to load a table partitioned hash isn't sensible. These tables use a HASH algorithm to fill several partitions so that each partition will have the same number of lines.

  An EXCHANGE puts ALL the data in a partition; This is just an update of data dictionary.

  or I try with just 1 hash partition at the start then swap the records and split... but the split hash partition is possible? NO.

  No - you can't divide a HASH partition. See the VLDB and partitioning Doc

  http://docs.Oracle.com/CD/B28359_01/server.111/b32024/part_admin.htm#g1010774

  Also the use of "without validation" will cause problems for your first example because partition P1 will be given which actually belongs to P2, P3 and P4 partitions.

  So if you now create a local unique index on this table, you will be able to use this index to find any data belonging to these other three partitions because Oracle will use on the index partition pruning to determine which partitions to check. And the index for other partitions partitions will have all the data in them all the data being located on the P1 partition.

  Try this code example to see what I mean:

  drop table myTab cascade constraints;

  drop table myTabPar cascade constraints;

  drop table myTabPar1 cascade constraints;

  create the table myTab (myId number);

  create the table MyTabPar (myId number) partition by hash (myId)
  (partition p1, partition p2);

  create the table MyTabPar1 (myId number) partition by hash (myId)
  (partition p1, partition p2);

  create an index on mytabpar (myId) single mytabpar_ndx local

  create an index only mytabpar1_ndx on local mytabpar1 (myId)

  insert into values myTab (1);

  insert into myTab values (2);

  insert into mytabpar1 select * from mytab

  ALTER table mytabpar Exchange partition p1 with table mytab without validation

  commit;

  Select * from mytabpar;

  MYID

  1

  2

  Select * partition mytabpar (p1)

  MYID

  1

  2

  Select * partition mytabpar (p2)

  -No data

  Select * from mytabpar where myid = 2

  MYID

  2

  Select * from mytabpar where myid = 1

  -No data

  PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT

  SQL_ID, 1s1gpvm7pf05k, number of children 0

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

  Select * from mytabpar where myid = 1

  Hash value of plan: 1899509776

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

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

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

  |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT |              |       |       |     1 (100) |       |       |

  |   1.  UNIQUE HASH PARTITION |              |     1.    13.     0 (0) |     2.     2.

  |*  2 |   INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | MYTABPAR_NDX |     1.    13.     0 (0) |     2.     2.

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

  Information of predicates (identified by the operation identity card):

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

  2 - access ("MYID" = 1)

  The plan shows Oracle uses the unique index to find the data from a hash of the value ('myid = 1') indicates that only the partition of the local index for partition 2 may possibly have the necessary data.

  Of course, it is wrong because the clause "without validation" has been used to put all the data in the first partition.

  The typical use case if HASH is involved is when there are secondary hash partitions. Then, you can create a table 'temp' that is partitioned by hash and switch with the partition - you exchange them with the subparts of hash. This is the ONLY use case where EXCHANGE to operate between two partitioned tables: a table is partitioned and sous-partitionnée and the 'temp' table is partitioned but its partitioning scheme is identical to the "sub" mΘthodes of recommandΘes of the other table partitioning.

• Split partition partition types

  11.2.0.4

  Big enough table, 800 GB.  several columns.  4 of interest here.

  (identification number,

  date of app_date,

  keep varchar2 (1).

  old varchar2 (1))

  Table is currently divided by the id.   Due to a change in treatment, that I need to reorganize by changing the partitioning to be mainly on the field of app_date and then also under divided by a combination of fields (keep, old).

  I could create blank table with partitions and push data there, but I was wondering if split characteristic partition is possible for use here to save the time and space to work?

  I'll expand the question then, is at - it another way to reorganize the partitiong method other than to create the new table?

  Non - Oracle needs to create a new table (using DBMS_REDEFINITION and data transfer), or you need to do.

  The data is stored in segments. There is only a SINGLE segment for a table not partitioned. A partitioned table has a segment for each partition created. A subpartitioned table has a segment for each subpartition created.

  The SPLIT operation create two partitions where it existed before, but the partition structure is the SAME.

  To change the partition structure you need a new table and you need to move ALL the data.