table partitioned and unique keys

Similar Questions

• Primary key and unique key not Null

  Hello gurus,
  
  Asked in an interview about the difference between primary and unique keys.
  I talked Unique keys can accept null values, but they are unique through should have the table. So, the next question asked me was "a Unique key NOT NULL can be treated as the primary key?
  
  Tricky question! :)
  I said yes! that it meets the requirement to be a primary key for this particular table, but since this isn't really a primary key, that it can't be covered in the foreign keys.
  
  The interviewer wanted just a Yes or no.
  
  Can someone please put some of this?
  
  Thanks in advance!

  Two things.
  1. unique can also be referenced as a foreign key. If your statement "but because this isn't really a primary key may not be seized key foreign." is not true.
  2. primary key and Unique key are different (for example you can have more than one UK in a table but PK's alone) and to know the difference, read some RDBMS concepts.

  I'm curious to know what is the outcome of your interview? ;)

• Potential problems for tables without primary keys and unique keys

  GoldenGate 11.2.1.0.3/Solaris 10
  DB: Oracle for Oracle (Source and target is 11.2.0.3)
  Topology: unidirectional
  
  
  In our one-way configuration GG, little of the tables being replicated is not a primary key or a Unique key.
  
  Last week when we have implemented GG for the test, we received warnings for these table below.
  

  GGSCI > add trandata WMHS_UD.crtn_dtl
  
  2013-01-12 11:34:33  WARNING OGG-00869  No unique key is defined for table 'CRTN_DTL'. All viable columns will be used to represent the key, but may not guarantee uniqueness.  KEYCOLS may be used to define the key.
  
  Logging of supplemental redo data enabled for table WMHS_UD.crtn_dtl.

  Replication seems to work very well for these tables.
  
  Googling, I think that there may be performance degradation when you replicate tables without PK or the United Kingdom.
  
  But are there other potential problems such as data of a certain kind not replicated to the lack of PK/UK?

  It really depends on the data.

  By default, GG is combining all columns as a virtual primary key but don't no conflict control by default. So when you can be sure that the record you insert into the table is unique, then it will work.
  BUT as soon as you insert the same record, which is already inserted, then you will encounter problems.

  Let me show what happens when you use an initial charge because it makes it easier to describe:
  We start at 10:00 the capture for a table. Now, you insert a record at 10:00 in the tables. When you now start an initial charge to 10.02, then check you have inserted in the database to 10.01 will be repeated two times. During the IPL as the initial charge is made to 10.02 and it includes data of 10.01 AND it will be replicated again through the process of capture/replicate.

• display the columns as rows in the table of non-unique key

  Hi OTN/users, I hope you can help me
  
  Given a table:
  
  create table t (varchar2 (30), int b, int, date c);
  
  with these data in:
  
  insert into values t (a1, 40, to_date (December 1, 2012 '));
  insert into values t (a1, 50, to_date (December 1, 2012 '));
  insert into values t (a1, 60, to_date (December 1, 2012 '));
  insert into values t (b1, 10, to_date (December 1, 2012 '));
  insert into values t (b1, 20, to_date (December 1, 2012 '));
  insert into values t (b1, 30, to_date (December 1, 2012 '));
  insert into values t (c1, 60, to_date (December 1, 2012 '));
  insert into values t (c1, 70, to_date (December 1, 2012 '));
  insert into values t (c1, 80, to_date (December 1, 2012 '));
  
  -I want the output columns for each of the 'a' as a single line ex:
  
  A1 40 50 60 1 December 2012
  B1 10 20 30 December 1, 2012
  ...
  
  I was almost right, but "a" neck repeats 4 times for each line of output:
  
  A1 40
  50 A1
  A1 60
  A1 1 December 2012
  
  -I want to exit repeat delete the first column "a" but see the rest in a straight line.
  
  I tried various things (Pivot, Rollup, etc.), but the fact that I'm in overlay on a table with no unique lines complicated things maybe.
  Any help would be appreciated

  Hi Kim,

  Kim Berg Hansen wrote:
  Even [url http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/apex/f?p=100:11:0:P11_QUESTION_ID:5658416800346527104] Tom agrees with Nicosa ;-)

  Very honored that Tom has decided to use my solution. ;-) ;-) ;-)
  But I guess that means that the OP may not like here to mark the thread as an answer.

• Table partition and no partition indexes

  Hello
  
  I have the partition table that contains about 1 ml recods and he have daily score.
  This partition table have only a unique index that is a partition No.
  
  CREATE UNIQUE INDEX xxxxxx WE yyyyyy
  (ITEM_GUID, IMAGE_SIDE)
  LOGGING
  TABLESPACE zzzzzz
  PCTFREE 10
  INITRANS 2
  MAXTRANS 255
  STORAGE)
  INITIAL 170M
  ACCORDING TO 1 M
  MINEXTENTS 1
  MAXEXTENTS 2147483645
  PCTINCREASE 0
  DEFAULT USER_TABLES
  )
  NOPARALLEL;
  
  I drop very first partition of
  
  Fall of ALTER TABLE wwww.yyyyy SCORE PT_20080706;
  
  But this isn't my unique INVALID index.
  
  Is it normal to have a VALID unique index after the fall of any partition?
  
  Do I have to rebuild a unique index again?
  
  DB: oracle 10.2.0.3
  platform: solaris
  
  Thanks in advance

  According to the Oracle doc, if you drop the bulkhead with an overall index,.

  All index global, or all partitions of global partitioned indexes are marked UNUSABLE unless one of the following are true:

  You specify the UPDATE INDEX (cannot be specified for tables organized by index. Use GLOBAL updating INDEXES.)

  The dropped partition or its subparts are empty

  more info here
  http://download.Oracle.com/docs/CD/B19306_01/server.102/b14231/partiti.htm#sthref2751

  Check ALL_PART_INDEXES and ALL_INDEXES to check the State of your indexes.

• Unique key on the partitioned table range

  Hello
  
  We use a range of composite range-hash partitioned table
  
  Use index - try to do this have same tablespace to the local partitions but not liking it
  
  ALTER table RETAILER_TRANSACTION_COMP_POR
  Add primary key constraint RETAILER_TRANSACTION_COMP_PK (DWH_NUM)
  using index
  LOCAL
  
  
  ORA-14039: partitioning columns must be a subset of the columns in a unique index key
  
  Without local then fine but does not have same tablespace to walls and don't want to make this part of the partition key.
  
  Range Tbal partitioned - it's just a UK to avoid duplicates

  [oracle@localhost ~]$ oerr ora 14039
  14039, 00000, "partitioning columns must form a subset of key columns of a UNIQUE index"
  // *Cause:  User attempted to create a UNIQUE partitioned index whose
  //          partitioning columns do not form a subset of its key columns
  //          which is illegal
  // *Action: If the user, indeed, desired to create an index whose
  //          partitioning columns do not form a subset of its key columns,
  //          it must be created as non-UNIQUE; otherwise, correct the
  //          list of key and/or partitioning columns to ensure that the index'
  //          partitioning columns form a subset of its key columns
  

• ORA-02266: permit to unique/primary keys in table referenced by foreign keys

  Hello
  I'm trying to delete data from a table by dropping a partition. I've identified all the child tables by running the following command.
  
  Select "select count (*) from ' |" table_name |' where employee_id = 100; »
  of dba_constraints
  where constraint_type = 'R '.
  and r_constraint_name in
  (select constraint_name from dba_constraints
  where constraint_type in ('P', 'U') and table_name =' EMPLOYEE);
  
  
  "SELECTCOUNT (*) OF | TABLE_NAME | "WHEREEMPLOYEE_ID_ID = 100; »
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Select count (*) in the PT_ORDERS where employee_id = 100;
  Select count (*) in the PT_DEP where employee_id = 100;
  Select count (*) in the PT_SKILLSET where employee_id = 100;
  
  I dropped the score for number 100 in all child tables. The count (*) select returns 0 rows for each of the foregoing.
  
  When I try to run the command on the EMPLOYEE table, below I get ' ORA-02266: unique/primary keys in table referenced by foreign keys enabled.
  
  Drop partition ALTER table EMPLOYEE EMP_ID_100;
  
  I don't see why I am unable to give up this partition now because it is data child present in any of the referenced tables. Any suggestions or help on this would be greatly appreciated.
  
  Thank you.
  
  RGS,
  Rob

  You must first disable foreign key constraints and delete the partition. Deletion of lines or a fall in childs partitions do not work in this case
  as you have the overall dependence:

  
  
  SQL > create table scott.t (x int primary key, int y)
  
  2 partition by (list (y)
  
  3 values p_1 (1) partition, partition values p_2 (2))
  
  4.
  
  Table created.
  SQL > create table scott.t_c (x int references scott.t (x), int y)
  
  2 partition by (list (y)
  
  3 values p_1 (1) partition, partition values p_2 (2))
  
  4.
  Table created.
  SQL > insert into scott.t values (1,1)
  
  3 N
  1 line of creation.
  SQL > insert into scott.t values (2,2)
  
  3 N
  1 line of creation.
  SQL > insert into scott.t_c values (1,1)
  
  3 N
  1 line of creation.
  SQL > insert into scott.t_c values (2,2)
  
  3 N
  1 line of creation.
  SQL > commit;
  Validation complete.
  SQL > alter table scott.t_c drop partition p_2.
  Modified table.
  SQL > alter table scott.t drop partition p_2.
  
  ALTER table drop partition p_2 scott.t
  
  *
  
  ERROR on line 1:
  
  ORA-02266: permit to unique/primary keys in table referenced by foreign keys
  SQL > select constraint_name from dba_constraints
  
  2 where owner = 'SCOTT' and constraint_type = 'P '.
  
  3 and table_name = 't';
  CONSTRAINT_NAME
  
  ------------------------------
  
  SYS_C0011058
  SQL > select constraint_name from dba_constraints
  
  2 where owner = 'SCOTT' and constraint_type = 'R '.
  
  3 and r_constraint_name = "SYS_C0011058";
  CONSTRAINT_NAME
  
  ------------------------------
  
  SYS_C0011059
  SQL > alter the constraint to disable scott.t_c table SYS_C0011059;
  Modified table.
  SQL > alter table scott.t drop partition p_2.
  Modified table.
  SQL > alter table scott.t_c enable novalidate constraint SYS_C0011059;
  Modified table.
  
  

  I guess you should consider options such as partitioning Referencial (with some restrictions).

  Best wishes
  Dmitry.

• Why we cannot create more than one primary key on a table. Why we create several unique key on a table. Please explain if anyone have details of this.

  Why we cannot create more than one primary key on a table. Why we create several unique key on a table. Please explain if anyone have details of this.

  «a primary key has semantic meaning, it is to be immutable (never change of value), unique and not null.»

  a unique constraint is simply "at any time, these values are unique - they can change and they can be null.

  You use a unique when constraint

  (a) you do not already have a primary key for a table can have only one
  (b) you allow NULL values in attributes
  "(c) to allow you to update the values in the attributes.

  https://asktom.Oracle.com/pls/Apex/f?p=100:11:0:P11_QUESTION_ID:5541352100346689891

• What happens to the existing after the partition of table index and created with local index

  Hi guys,.

  / / DESC part id name number, varchar2 (100), number of wage

  In an existing table PART I add 1 column DATASEQ MORE. I wonder the part of table based on dataseq.now, the table is created with this logic of partition

  create the part table partition (identification number, name varchar2 (100), number of salary, number DATASEQ) in list (dataseq) (values partition PART_INITIAL (1));

  Suggestionn necessary. given that the table is partitioned based on DATASEQ I wonder to add local indexes on dataseq. to dataseq, I have added a local index create index idx on share (dataseq) LOCAL; Now my question is, already, there are the existing index is the column ID and salary.

  (1) IDX for dataseq is created locally so that it will be partition on each partition on the main table. Please tell me what is happening to the index on the column ID and salary... it will create again in local?

  Please suggest

  S

  Hello

  first of all, in reality 'a partition table' means create a new table a migration of existing data it (although, theoretically, you can use dbms_redefinition to partition an existing table - however, it's just doing the same thing behind the scenes). This means that you also get to decide what to do with the index - index will be local, who will be global (you can also reassess some of existing indexes and decide that they are not really necessary).

  Second of all, the choice of the partitioning key seems weird. Partitioning is a data management technique more that anything else, in order to be eligible, you must find a good partitioning key. A column recently added, named "data_seq" is not a good candidate. Can you give us more details about this column and why it was chosen as a partitioning key?

  I suspect that the person who proposed this partitioning scheme made a huge mistake. A non-partitioned table is much better in all aspects (including the ease of management and performance) that divided one wrongly.

  Best regards

  Nikolai

• Number of unique key in a table column

  Hi all...
  
  
  Please help me with this problem. Looking for the number of threads, but could not understand how do.
  
  
  I have a master form / retail users (main table) and responsibilities (detail table).
  The problem is with the table Details (responsibilities), the detail is "" "FORM TABULAR" ".
  A user can have the following responsibilities RESP1, RESP2, RESP3, RESP4 (it's a '' select list' ")
  
  
  When the administrator creates users, they will strike "" Add line"," once they choose a responsibility of the selection list.
  When they hit add line once again, "'chosen responsibility should display in the selection list.
  
  
  EX: when they select RESP "RESP1' in the first row, if they hit add line once again,"RESP1"does not present it as an option for users to select.
  
  
  EX: If the user already has an RESP "" RESP3"" in the database, "'' RESP3" ' should not display if they try to add another RESP.
  
  Each select list should display different values depend on the values they have chosen so far *.
  
  -> we can put constaint unique key on this column or put validation on this page, but I'm looking for the implementation
  
  
  Please check the following application example:
  
  
  http://Apex.Oracle.com/pls/Apex/f?p=42177
  
  
  Please help me in this task
  
  Thank you

  There is no way to declaratively in the Apex to do this.

  In version 4.x:
  1. There is no declarative way to dynamically filter a list of values in a tabular presentation. For each line, the LOV is actually pre-built on a hidden row zero when the page first appears.
  2. to do this, you will need to come up with a process, possibly including AJAX, to fill an array of values to the selection list, delete the values in the table if they have been selected on the other lines of the page and then re - fill the selection on the new list online.

  In version 3.x:
  1 lines are stored in the database every time that you add a row (actually the page saves and repainted with a new line). You can set your LOV SQL to return the values valid less those already stored in the database that the user adds lines.
  2. However, that won't necessarily work 100% if you look at a page with several lines already on it and want to update the existing lines and you need in any case a sort of validation or a unique constraint.

  It is not impossible, but it's very very labor intensive and maintainability is more difficult if another developer a year or two down the road to inherit this page you.

  I'd really like to tell your business analyst or key functional end users what they ask for is not supported by Apex first review (and to tell you the truth, it is indeed non-supported, so you are not lying down or fake apology) and they consider like allowing more traditional validation via a unique constraint and page validation.

• Function table in pipeline and the key-preservation - (ORA-01779)

  Hey oraclers,
  
  If I had to use a function table in the pipeline to cover complex application logic, I rarely update a subset of...
  
  (simplified example)
  

  create type derived_t as object ( key integer, value varchar2(100) );
  create type derived_tc as table of result_t;
  
  create or replace function new_derivations( p_param varchar2 ) return derived_tc pipelined
  is
    l_derived derived_t;
  begin
   
    loop
      /* do stuff here */
      .....
      pipe row( l_derived );
    end loop;
  return;
  end;
  /
  
  create table derivations
  as 
  ( 
    key integer primary key,
    value varchar2(100)
  );
  
  
  insert into derivations select t.* from table( cast( new_derivations( 'test' ) as derived_tc ) ) t;

  But when I try...
  

  update ( 
     select d.rowid,
              d.key,
              d.value,
              t.value new_value
     from   derivations d,
              table( cast( new_derivations( 'test' ) as derived_tc ) ) t
     where d.key = t.key 
     and     d.key between :low_key and :high_key
  )
    set value = new_value;

  I get ORA-01779: cannot modify a column that is mapped to a table not preserved key...
  
  OK... so reading around us need to be able to tell Oracle that each row in the result set view is preserved key - the 'key' of derivations from the table column and the column "key" to the result of the function in the pipeline are unique (and compatible).
  
  Is it possible to hint Oracle (11.2.0.2.0 on Windows) to achieve this?
  
  Thanks muchly,.
  
  Lachlan Pitts

  You can rewrite this kind of update in a MERGE statement statement, which I think does not suffer the problem you are experiencing:

  merge into derivations d
  using (select t.key, t.value new_value from table( cast( new_derivations( 'test' ) as derived_tc ) ) t) s
  on (d.key = s.key and d.key between :low_key and :high_key)
  when matched then update set d.value = t.new_value
  

  (Not checked for syntax errors)

  You can also watch this:
  http://asktom.Oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0:P11_QUESTION_ID:760068400346785797

  Published by: Toon Koppelaars February 8, 2011 05:40

• How to delete records from a table that has a composite unique key duplicate

  Hello
  I get the customer data from various sources in the staging of the table where I insert in the database table where the combination of two columns is considered as a unique key. But there is a possibility of duplicates. How to find duplicates in a SQL or pl/sql
  
  Thank you
  Manoi.

  Kassa,

  You can see the duplicates by using the following query...

  sql> select * from temp_rajesh;
  
        COL1       COL2 MESSAGE
  ---------- ---------- ------------------
         100        200 message
         100        200 message2
         300        400 message3
         400        500 message 4
  
  sql> select col1, col2, count(*)
    2     from temp_rajesh
    3       group by col1, col2
    4         having count(*) > 1;
  
        COL1       COL2   COUNT(*)
  ---------- ---------- ----------
         100        200          2
  

  -If in the case of duplicate records, you should see only the duplicates (according to some timestamp etc., you can use the functinon row_number analytic..)

    1  select col1, col2 from (
    2  select col1, col2,
    3         row_number() over (partition by col1, col2
    4                            order by message) rn
    5    from temp_rajesh)
    6*   where rn > 1
  sql> /
  
        COL1       COL2
  ---------- ----------
         100        200
  

  In the above example, I use message to order, you can replace it with activity_timestamp or the insertd_date according to your logic... when there are two records... one that you choose to duplicate.

  Thank you
  Rajesh.

  Published by: Rajesh Chamarthi on November 20, 2009 12:05 AM (added for example)

• Why use partitioning and key-associator key features?

  Why use partitioning and key-associator key features?
  
  What kind of application are not suitable for the use of the features key-associator and partitioning key?
  Could you give me some examples?
  
  Thank you

  So the typical is to use KeyAssociation. It is a unique interface which uses a method

  public Object getAssociatedKey();

  I think that it works on the ClusterService level (rather than saying the Cache). For example, if you have a customer and a cache of account where a customer can have multiple accounts. Now, the customer and the account object will implement KeyAssociation and return the customer object as the AssociatedKey. This will cause these items to live on the same partition.

  Now you can do some clever tricks since you know that they are on the same partition. These include the use of the BackingMap and EntryProcessors / InvocationService / aggregators to return all AccountIds associated with a customer account (essentially a join).

  Unfortunately, these are enough consistency of the advanced so it is better to build first of all in a unit test and get them working before you include in your application.

  Best, Andrew.

  PS. You can also use the KeyPartitioningStrategy, but I prefer the KeyAssociation (like most people).

• How to set the condition of rule to check the Primary Key, Foreign Key and Unique

  I use Oracle 10.2
  Could someone tell me please how to set the rule condition to check the primary key, foreign key constraint of uniqueness?

  Hello

  Primary key, unique constraints and foreign key are better applied using the native functionality of database constraint. If you like the rules to check if a key exists at the time of the evaluation, you can use a function defined by the user in a rule condition and this function can ask to turn the table keys.

  Hope this helps,
  -Aravind.

• Large partition table with the primary key referenced by several child tables

  I tested this procedure and it works perfectly. Although when children tables refer to the key column, after execution of dbms_redefinition.finish_redef_table they all are referring to table exercised. In test I deal forced FK droped on tables children and recreated them. What could be the best way to do this in this scenario?

  Thanks for all comments/opinions!

  Are you sure? You should end up with the original FK constraint (disabled and renamed to have a prefix of $$ TMP) pointing to the staging table (which is of course the famous original table), and allowed a new constraint with the correct name, pointing to the new version of the table. so all you need to do to bring order to the top is to remove the constraint of renamed.

  This running-in of the SCOTT schema clearly indicates:

  create the table deptint in select * from dept where 1 = 2;

  exec dbms_redefinition.start_redef_table (user, 'dept', 'deptint')

  n number of var

  exec dbms_redefinition.copy_table_dependents (user, "dept', 'deptint', DBMS_REDEFINITION.") CONS_ORIG_PARAMS, TRUE, TRUE, TRUE, TRUE,: n)

  Print n

  exec dbms_redefinition.finish_redef_table (user, 'dept', 'deptint')

  Select CONSTRAINT_NAME, CONSTRAINT_TYPE, TABLE_NAME, user_constraints STATE;