I have a question regarding the oracle copy command:
Is it possible to copy data between databases (were the structure is the same) and honor relationships in one go without(!) writing procedures?
To be more precise:
Table B refers (by B.FK) to table A (A.PK) by a foreign key (B.FK -> A.PK; no relationship information is stored in the db itself). The keys are generated by a sequence, which is used to create the PK for all tables.
So how to copy table A and B while keeping the relationship intact and use the target DBs sequence to generate new primary keys for the copied data (i cannot use the "original" PK values as they might already be used in the same table for a different dataset)?
I doubt that the copy command is capable to handle this situation but what is the way to achieve the desired behavior?
Thanks
Matthias
Oracle has several different ways of moving data from one database to another, of which the SQL*Plus copy command is the most basic and the least satisfactory. Writing your own replication routine (as #OldProgrammer suggests) isn't much better.
You're using 11g, so move into the 21st century by using the built-in Streams functionality.
There is no way to synchronize sequences across databases. There is a workaround, which is explained by the inestimable Tom Kyte.
I generally prefer db links and then use sql insert statements to copy over data.
In your scenario , first insert data of Table A using DB link and then table. If you try otherway round, you will error.
For info on DB link , you canc heck this link: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28310/ds_concepts002.htm
Related
Which one is better (performance wise and operation on the long run) in maintaining data loaded, managed or external?
And by maintaining, i mean that these tables will have the following operations on daily basis frequently;
Select using partitions most of the time.. but for some of it they are not used.
Delete specific records, not all the partition (for example found a problem in some columns and want to delete and insert it again). - i am not sure if this supported for normal tables, unless transactional is used.
Most important, The need to merge files frequently.. may be twice a day to merge small files to gain less mappers. I know concate is available on managed and insert overwrite on external.. which one is less cost?
It depends on your use case. External table is recommended when they are used across multiple application for example Along with hive pig or other application is also used for processing the data in this kind of scenario external tables are mainly recommended.They are used when you are mainly reading data.
While in case of managed tables hive have complete control over the data. Though you can convert any external table to managed and vice versa
alter table table_name SET TBLPROPERTIES('EXTERNAL'='TRUE');
As in your case you are doing frequent modifications in data so it is better that hive should have total control over the data. In this scenraio it is recommended to use Managed tables.
Apart from that managed table are more secure then external table because external table can be accessed by anyone. While in managed table you can implement hive level security which provided better control but in case of external you will have to implement HDFS level security.
You can refer the below links which can give you few pointers in considerations
External Vs Managed tables comparison
I've tried to figure out which performance impacts the use of temporary tables has on an Oracle database. We want to use these tables in our ETL process to save temporary results. At this time we are using physical tables for this purpose and truncating this tables at the beginning of the ETL process. I know that the truncate process is very expensive and therefore I thought if it would be better to use temporary tables instead.
Have anyone of you experiences if there is a performance boost by using temporary tables in this scenario?
There were only some answers on this question regarding to the SQL Server like in this question. But I don't know if these recommendations also fit for the Oracle db.
It would be nice if anyone could list the advantages and disadvanteges of this feature and also point out in which scenarios this feature could be applicable.
Thanks in advance.
First of all: truncate is not expensive, a delete with no condition is very expensive.
Second: do your temporary table have indexes? What about external keys?
That could affect performance.
The temporary table works more or less like Sql Server (of course the syntax is different, like global temporary table), and both are just table.
You won't get any performance gain with temporary tables against normal table, they are just the same: they have a definition on DB, can have indexes, and are logged.
The only difference is that temporary table are exclusive to your session (except for global table) and that means if multiple scripts from multiple sessions refer to the same table, every one is reading/writing a different table and they cannot locking each other (in this case you could gain performance, but I think it's rarely the case).
I need to clone (make a 1to1 copy of) several Tables in our Oracle DB into another Oracle DB.
Both DBs are running under Oracle version 11.2.0.3
Problems are:
Tables (together) are quite large (> 20gb)
Must be a real "Snapshot". DB may change during cloning process
Realisation must be (of course) damn quick
I came across the DB-Link technology, which seems feasible here. But my question is: How can I make sure, that ALL Tables are consistent after the cloning process? I mean this scenario:
Copy Table A
Copy Table B
Source Table A and Table C changes
Copy Table C
Then my copy Table C contains data, which is NOT present in copy Table A, which might be a constraint violation (logically). How can I avoid this? How do I make a real snapshot of 40 Tables? Is there something like a "revision" of the whole DB? How would the DB-Link-Query then look like?
I suggest you investigate the export utility of Oracle itself. You can impose that the "dump" of the set of tables you are interested in is consistent in terms of transaction, too.
More details here.
Considering you are using 11g I suppose that with "exp tool" you mean the "Data Pump Exp" and not the "legacy exp/imp Utility"?
See the differences here.
If this is not the case try switching to the Data Pump which was designed specifically to cope with large datasets, and may be further tuned to squeeze some extra performance.
I am new to Oracle. Since we have rewritten an earlier application , we have to migrate the data from the earlier database in Oracle 9i to a new database , also in 9i, with totally different structures. The column names and types would be totally different. We need to map the tables and columns , try to export as much data as possible, eliminate duplicates, and fill empty values with defaults.
Are there any tools which can help in mapping the elements of the 2 databases , with rules to handle duplicates, and default values and migrate the data ?
Thanks,
Chak.
If your goal is to migrate data between two very different schemas you will probably need an ETL solution (ETL=Extract Transform Load).
An ETL will allow you to:
Select data from your source database(s) [Extract]
apply business logic to the selected data [Transform] (deal with duplicates, default values, map source tables/columns with destination tables/columns...)
insert the data into the new database [Load]
Most ETLs also allow some kind of automatisation and reporting of the loads (bad/discarded rows...)
Oracle's ETL is called Oracle Warehouse Builder (OWB). It is included in the Database licence and you can download it from the Oracle website. As most Oracle products it is powerful but the learning curve is a bit steep.
You may want to look into the [ETL] section here in SO, among others:
What ETL tool do you use?
ETL tools… what do they do exactly? In laymans terms please.
In many cases, creating a database link and some scripts a'la
insert into newtable select distinct foo, bar, 'defaultvalue' from oldtable#olddatabase where xxx
should do the trick
not sure if the subject entirely conveys what I'm trying to achieve, but let me explain:
We are building an application that uses Oracle as storage backend. Each year, last years dataset will be "Archived", and a new instance created and populated from scratch.
What are the options to do this within the same schema?
Keep version information on a record level (we presume this will be too slow for our use-case).
Keep version information on a table level, so for each new version, we will re-create all the tables but with a new version prefix. (We like this solution, since we can do it all in code).
?
Is there not something like partitions/personalities/namespaces available that will allow us to achieve this in Oracle?
My oracle experience is rather limited, any assistance will be greatly appreciated!
The RDBMS conceptual model is not very good at maintaining temporal versions of data. So it is not just Oracle which is lacking in this regard.
I am unclear why you think keeping version information at the record level will be too slow. Too slow in creating a new version? Or too slow where it comes to data retrieval during regular operations?
Here is how you could do it. Given a table CUSTOMERS with a business key of CUSTOMER_REF I might normally build it like this (I am using abbreviated syntax rather than best practice for reasons of space):
create table customers
( id number not null primary key
, customer_ref number not null unique key
, name varchar2(30) not null )
/
The versioned equivalent would look like this:
create table customers
( id number not null primary key
, customer_ref number not null
, version_number number
, name varchar2(30) not null
, constraint whatever unique (customer_ref, version_number) )
/
This works by keeping the current version of VERSION_NUMBER null, and only populating it at archival time. Any lookup is going to have to include and version_number is null. This will be a bit of a pain and you may need to include the column in any additional indexes you build.
Obviously maintaining all versions of the records in the same table will increase the size of your tables, which might have an effect on performance. Oracle's Partitioning option can definitely help here. It also would give you a neat way of creating next year's set of data. However, it is a chargeable extra on top of the Enterprise License, so it is an expensive option. Find out more..
The most time consuming aspect of this will be managing foreign key relationships in the new version of the table. Presuming you choose to use synthetic primary keys, the archival process will have to generate new IDs and then painstakingly cascade them to their dependent records in the new versions of referencing foreign keys.
Thinking about this makes discreet tables for each version seem very attractive. For ease of use I would keep the current version un-prefixed, so that archiving becomes a process simply of
create table customers_n as select * from customers;
You might want to avoid downtime while creating the versioned tables. In that case you could use materialized views to capture the tables' state during the run-up to the archival switchover. When the clock strikes twelve you can switch off the refresh. (caveat: this is thinking on the fly, I have never done anything like this so try before you buy.)
One pertinent advantage of multiple tables (and Partitioning) is that you can move the archived records to a READ ONLY tablespace. This not only preserves them from unwanted change, it also means you can exclude them from subsequent backups.
edit
I notice you have commented that the archived data can occasionbally be amended. In taht case moving it to READ ONLY tablespaces is not a go-er.
The only thing I wil add to what APC said is regarding your asking for "namespaces".
A namespace in Oracle is a schema, whereby you can have the same object name(s) in each schema.
Of course this all depends on how your app must access multiple versions, but I would lean towards a different schema for each year before I would use some sort of naming convention to maintain versions of tables in the same schema. The reason is, eventually you will have a nightmares. At least with different schemas, all DDL can be the same, all references to objects will be the same, and tools like ER modellers and query tools will work within the context of that schema. Data models change, so at some point you may need to run some compare tools, and if all your tables are named funky with some sort of version postfix, that won't work well.
Add a schema can be copied / moved with export or data pump quickly using the fromuser/touser or remap_schema options, so you won't need much code, except to do any cleanup of last years data out of the new version.
I find schemas are very useful as "containers" and most apps I host only have schema level privileges, so I'm guaranteed the app can be easily and quickly moved from instance to instance, or multiple copies of the app can be hosted side-by-side on the same instance.
Might the schema change between years. For example, in 2010 you have fifteen columns but in 2011 you add a sixteenth.
If so, will the same application work on both 2010 and 2011 data.
If the schema is static, I'd go for table with a 'YEAR' column and use VPD/RLS/FGAC to apply a YEAR = '2010' predicate.
I'd only worry about partitioning if performance was a problem.
1) Interval partition it by year and some date field in the row.
2) Add it at the end of each table and populate it with a sequence and trigger.
3) Then partition by interval year on this col.