I have a table Customer_Chronics in Oracle 11g.
The table has three key columns as shown below :
branch_code
customer_id
period
I have partitioned by table by list of branch_code, and now I'm having dilemma. Which is better:
Create unique index indexNumberOne on Customer_Chronics (PERIOD, CUSTOMER_ID);
Create unique index indexNumberTwo on Customer_Chronics (branch_code, PERIOD, CUSTOMER_ID);
The actual data must be unique by period, customer_id. If I put a unique index only on these two columns Oracle will check all partitions on the table when inserting new records?
The only way to enforce uniqueness is with a unique constraint on the columns of interest. So that's your first option. The database will check all values across all partitions it this case. But as it's a unique index that shouldn't take too long no matter how big the table gets (if that's your concern).
Yes, If you put unique index on that two columns only, Oracle will create a global index and will check all partitions. This is one of challenges I face sometime because we prefer local indexs for big tables (small tables should be OK).
Related
I would like to spare some tables in my database.
One table for example has a simple Primary-Key-ID column and a VARCHAR2 column.
The VARCHAR2 column has NO duplicate values, yet different unique IDs.
The PK column of this table is just referenced once as a foreign key in another table.
My thoughts are now to insert the values from the VARCHAR2 column into the the table which has held the primary key.
I could now remove the foreign key reference, delete the table and gain a new column with all the (duplicate) VARCHAR2 values. These I would like to compress in a unique/distinct way.
I have heard about index in the Oracle Database to compress column(s) but I am not quite sure which index I need or how to use them...
The underlying feature (and storage savings) should be about as the same as it was with the previous table of unique values and the foreign key reference.
Thank you for your help in advance!
Oracle basic compression allows us to compress tables. It comes with several distinct limitations, not the least of which is that it isn't suitable for OLTP databases. Direct path inserts, updates and deletes don't benefit. So you can't do what you want that way. If your organisation has sprung for the Advanced Compression licence then you have more options, but the compression still works on the table not an individual column.
I think you've confused things with index compression, which does operate on columns, as it allows us to compress the leading column(s) of a compound index. But it's worth applying only when there's a lot of repetition in those columns. If your index has a unique ID for the leading column than compression will actually increase the total amount of space taken. (Just one reason why compound indexes should be built with the least selective column first and the most selective column last.)
Your table is a classic key-value lookup table. So you could consider converting it into an index-organized table. You would save yourself a bit of space by maintaining only a specialized index instead of a table and its primary key index. Find out more
I have a datamart with 5 dimension table and a fact table.
I'm trying to clean a dimension table that has few rows (4000 rows). But, the fact table have millions rows (25GB)(Indexes and partitions).
When I try to delete a row in the table dimension, the process becomes very slow. It's just as slow despite the absence of relationship with a row in the fact table (cascade delete).
Is there any way to optimize this?. Thanks in advance.
Presumably, there is a cascading delete of some sort between the dimension table and the fact table.
Adding an index on the key column in the fact table may be sufficient. Then Oracle can immediately tell if/where any given value is.
If that doesn't work, drop the foreign key constraint altogether. Delete the unused values and add the constraint back in.
You could try these strategies as well :
create another copy of the fact table but, without the dim foreign key column of the table to be cleaned.
create fact_table_new as
select dim1_k, dim2_k, dim3_k, dim4_k, dim5_k (not this column), fact_1, fact_2, ...
from fact_table ;
or
update fact_table
set dim5_fk_col = null
where dim5_fk_col in (select k_col from dim5_table) ;
I have a table with following schema:
MyTable {
User_ID,
Task_ID,
Task_Description
}
where Task_ID is the primary key.
I wish to partition it on User_ID. Also, new users may be added and I want new corresponding partitions to get created automatically.
I went through this (see page-8) and found that Oracle 11g provides Interval partitioning which does similar thing but with intervals.
Can I do the same with User_ID?
You can't automatically generate a unique partition for each distinct varchar(128) value.
You could hash partition the table. That would not guarantee that every partition had a single, unique user_id value. It would ensure that all the rows with the same user_id were in a single partition and would eliminate the need to do manual partition maintenance.
You could list partition the table. That would require, though, that you explicitly add a new partition when a new user_id value is added.
If the user_id values were strictly predictable, you could probably do something with an interval partitioning scheme on a virtual column. But that seems highly unlikely to be practical.
What is the business problem that you are trying to solve? Why is it necessary to have a single user_id value in each partition? Why are you partitioning the table in the first place?
I have a table which has two partitions (by range): first_half and second_half based on a column "INSERT_DAY".
I need to add subpartitions "SUCCESS" and "NONSUCCESS" based on the values of another column "STATUS" (subpartition by list) i.e. I need to transform my range partition to composite (range-list) partition.
I do not wish to drop existing tables or partitions. What is the ALTER query for this?
PS: The database is Oracle 9i
No alter query for adding subpartitions as far as i know.
To get the desired result performe the folowing steps
Create the table in the structure you want using create as select with the partitions and the sub partitions.
switch the names of the two tables.
you can also explore the use of dbms_Redefinition but if you have a luxury of a littel downtime it's not worth it.
How can I determine if an Oracle index is clustered or unclustered?
I've done
select FIELD from TABLE where rownum <100
where FIELD is the field on which is built the index. I have ordered tuples, but the result is wrong because the index is unclustered.
By default all indexes in Oracle are unclustered. The only clustered indexes in Oracle are the Index-Organized tables (IOT) primary key indexes.
You can determine if a table is an IOT by looking at the IOT_TYPE column in the ALL_TABLES view (its primary key could be determined by querying the ALL_CONSTRAINTS and ALL_CONS_COLUMNS views).
Here are some reasons why your query might return ordered rows:
Your table is index-organized and FIELD is the leading part of its primary key.
Your table is heap-organized but the rows are by chance ordered by FIELD, this happens sometimes on an incrementing identity column.
Case 2 will return sorted rows only by chance. The order of the inserts is not guaranteed, furthermore Oracle is free to reuse old blocks if some happen to have available space in the future, disrupting the fragile ordering.
Case 1 will most of the time return ordered rows, however you shouldn't rely on it since the order of the rows returned depends upon the algorithm of the access path which may change in the future (or if you change DB parameter, especially parallelism).
In both case if you want ordered rows you should supply an ORDER BY clause:
SELECT field
FROM (SELECT field
FROM TABLE
ORDER BY field)
WHERE rownum <= 100;
There is no concept of a "clustered index" in Oracle as in SQL Server and Sybase. There is an Index-Organized Table, which is similar but not the same.
"Clustered" indices, as implemented in Sybase, MS SQL Server and possibly others, where rows are physically stored in the order of the indexed column(s) don't exist as such in Oracle. "Cluster" has a different meaning in Oracle, relating, I believe, to the way blocks and tables are organized.
Oracle does have "Index Organized Tables", which are physically equivalent, but they're used much less frequently because the query optimizer works differently.
The closest I can get to an answer to the identification question is to try something like this:
SELECT IOT_TYPE FROM user_tables
WHERE table_name = '<your table name>'
My 10g instance reports IOT or null accordingly.
Index Organized Tables have to be organized on the primary key. Where the primary key is a sequence generated value this is often useless or even counter-productive (because simultaneous inserts get into conflict for the same block).
Single table clusters can be used to group data with the same column value in the same database block(s). But they are not ordered.