Search Results

Search found 1150 results on 46 pages for 'partitioning'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 35/46 | < Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >

  • Oracle Magazine, September/October 2006

    Oracle Magazine September/October 2006 features articles on database security, data hubs, Oracle content management solutions, Oracle Magazine at twenty, Oracle OpenWorld, partitioning, Oracle Secure Enterprise Search, Ajax, PL/SQL from .NET, Oracle Application Express, and much more.

    Read the article

  • After downloading the Wubi installer, what else do I need to do?

    - by Sam M
    If I were to install Ubuntu via the method stated here; http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/windows-installer Will I need to download/install anything else first? Do I simply select "Boot Ubuntu" and then go about my business? Will my HDD need partitioning beforehand? If I save files while running Ubuntu where do they go when I decide to boot Windows instead? Just trying to figure out the best way to use Ubuntu without removing the Windows OS (:

    Read the article

  • why does ubuntu not recognise hard drive on windows 7

    - by kingsley osime
    Im trying to install ubuntu on window 7 virtual PC, when I boot to the ubuntu ISO image just before the partitioning stage where ubuntu confirms you have at leaset 4GB hard drive space the installer puts a cross on requirement indicating system does not have required amount of space... however I have a 220GB hard drive with 20GB used to create the virtual disk..Its all a bit weird as I can't seem figure it out

    Read the article

  • install ubuntu with windows 7

    - by Olansile Okanlawon
    i finally decided to clear my hard disk and start over again, i need to install both ubuntu 12.04 and windows 7. I currently have two problems: 1. I have installed ubuntu on the fresh 320 GB drive, but when i restart i can't boot into my ubuntu, except i insert the flash drive i used for the installation into my system during d boot process. 2. What's the best and easiest way to install ubuntu 12.04 on a seperate partition, and how do i go about the partitioning

    Read the article

  • how to split a very large database on sql server

    - by ken jackson
    I have a 90 GB SQL Server database that I want to make more manageable. It stores stock data from 50+ different stocks from 2009 and 2010, and each stock is a separate table. Some tables have hundreds of millions of rows, and other have just a few million. What I want to do is somehow split the database, so that I don't have a single database file that is 90 GB. What I want is to be able to somehow magically split all the tables so that I can backup the 2009 data once and not have to keep on including it in the backup every time I backup the entire database, however, I would like the 2009 data to be included whenever I do a query. Is partitioning the database the way to go? Will it do the above for me, or will I need some other solution? I research partitioning, but I wasn't sure if that would solve all my problems. I wasn't able to find anything that would tell me whether or not it would migrate prexisting data, or whether it only worked for newly inserted data. Any help or pointers would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Ken

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2005 standard filegroups / files for performance on SAN

    - by Blootac
    I submitted this to stack overflow (here) but realised it should really be on serverfault. so apologies for the incorrect and duplicate posting: Ok so I've just been on a SQL Server course and we discussed the usage scenarios of multiple filegroups and files when in use over local RAID and local disks but we didn't touch SAN scenarios so my question is as follows; I currently have a 250 gig database running on SQL Server 2005 where some tables have a huge number of writes and others are fairly static. The database and all objects reside in a single file group with a single data file. The log file is also on the same volume. My interpretation is that separate data files should be used across different disks to lessen disk contention and that file groups should be used for partitioning of data. However, with a SAN you obviously don't really have the same issue of disk contention that you do with a small RAID setup (or at least we don't at the moment), and standard edition doesn't support partitioning. So in order to improve parallelism what should I do? My understanding of various Microsoft publications is that if I increase the number of data files, separate threads can act across each file separately. Which leads me to the question how many files should I have. One per core? Should I be putting tables and indexes with high levels of activity in separate file groups, each with the same number of data files as we have cores? Thank you

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2005 standard filegroups / files for performance on SAN

    - by Blootac
    Ok so I've just been on a SQL Server course and we discussed the usage scenarios of multiple filegroups and files when in use over local RAID and local disks but we didn't touch SAN scenarios so my question is as follows; I currently have a 250 gig database running on SQL Server 2005 where some tables have a huge number of writes and others are fairly static. The database and all objects reside in a single file group with a single data file. The log file is also on the same volume. My interpretation is that separate data files should be used across different disks to lessen disk contention and that file groups should be used for partitioning of data. However, with a SAN you obviously don't really have the same issue of disk contention that you do with a small RAID setup (or at least we don't at the moment), and standard edition doesn't support partitioning. So in order to improve parallelism what should I do? My understanding of various Microsoft publications is that if I increase the number of data files, separate threads can act across each file separately. Which leads me to the question how many files should I have. One per core? Should I be putting tables and indexes with high levels of activity in separate file groups, each with the same number of data files as we have cores? Thank you

    Read the article

  • DRBD as a block device for XEN VM (Centos 5.3)

    - by SaberTooth
    Hi all, I have setup a drbd resource between 2 server nodes - everything works correctly when doing sync tests between the two. (I want to create a HA cluster using drbd,xen and heartbeat) However, when I try and create a XEN VM with Centos as guest operating system, I get through to the partitioning screen on the install but when I select a partitioning type the next screen gives me the following error : "An error has occurred - no valid devices were found on which to create new file systems. Please check your hardware for the cause of this problem." This is the first time attempting create a setup like this and searching Google does not help much... my config files for DRBD and XEN.... DRBD (just the section that is pertinent) on xennode0 { device /dev/drbd0; disk /dev/sda5; address X.X.X.X:7788; flexible-meta-disk internal; } on xennode1 { device /dev/drbd0; disk /dev/sda5; address X.X.X.X:7788; meta-disk internal; } XEN kernel = "/boot/xeninstall/vmlinuz" ramdisk = "/boot/xeninstall/initrd.img" extra = "text" name = "VM" maxmem = 3000 memory = 3000 vcpus = 4 on_poweroff = "destroy" on_reboot = "restart" on_crash = "restart" vfb = [ ] disk = [ "phy:/dev/drbd0,sda1,w", "tap:aio:/srv/xen/xenswap.img,sda2,w" ] vif = [ "mac=00:16:3e:11:67:ae,bridge=xenbr0" ] root = "/dev/sda1 ro" Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Mysql: create index on 1.4 billion records

    - by SiLent SoNG
    I have a table with 1.4 billion records. The table structure is as follows: CREATE TABLE text_page ( text VARCHAR(255), page_id INT UNSIGNED ) ENGINE=MYISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=ascii The requirement is to create an index over the column text. The table size is about 34G. I have tried to create the index by the following statement: ALTER TABLE text_page ADD KEY ix_text (text) After 10 hours' waiting I finally give up this approach. Is there any workable solution on this problem? UPDATE: the table is unlikely to be updated or inserted or deleted. The reason why to create index on the column text is because this kind of sql query would be frequently executed: SELECT page_id FROM text_page WHERE text = ? UPDATE: I have solved the problem by partitioning the table. The table is partitioned into 40 pieces on column text. Then creating index on the table takes about 1 hours to complete. It seems that MySQL index creation becomes very slow when the table size becomes very big. And partitioning reduces the table into smaller trunks.

    Read the article

  • cannot make ubuntu 64-bit v12.04 install work

    - by honestann
    I decided it was time to update my ubuntu (single boot) computer from 64-bit v10.04 to 64-bit v12.04. Unfortunately, for some reason (or reasons) I just can't make it work. Note that I am attempting a fresh install of 64-bit v12.04 onto a new 3TB hard disk, not an upgrade of the 1TB hard disk that contains my working 64-bit v10.04 installation. To perform the attempted install of v12.04 I unplug the SATA cable from the 1TB drive and plug it into the 3TB drive (to avoid risking damage to my working v10.04 installation). I downloaded the ubuntu 64-bit v12.04 install DVD ISO file (~1.6 GB) from the ubuntu releases webpage and burned it onto a DVD. I have downloaded the DVD ISO file 3 times and burned 3 of these installation DVDs (twice with v10.04 and once with my winxp64 system), but none of them work. I run the "check disk" on the DVDs at the beginning of the installation process to assure the DVD is valid. When installation completes and the system boots the 3TB drive, it reports "unknown filesystem". After installation on the 250GB drives, the system boots up fine. During every install I plug the same SATA cable (sda) into only one disk drive (the 3TB or one of the 250GB drives) and leave the other disk drives unconnected (for simplicity). It is my understanding that 64-bit ubuntu (and 64-bit linux in general) has no problem with 3TB disk drives. In the BIOS I have tried having EFI set to "enabled" and "auto" with no apparent difference (no success). I never bothered setting the BIOS to "non-EFI". I have tried partitioning the drive in a few ways to see if that makes a difference, but so far it has not mattered. Typically I manually create partitions something like this: 8GB /boot ext4 8GB swap 3TB / ext4 But I've also tried the following, just in case it matters: 8GB boot efi 8GB swap 8GB /boot ext4 3TB / ext4 Note: In the partition dialog I specify bootup on the same drive I am partitioning and installing ubuntu v12.04 onto. It is a VERY DANGEROUS FACT that the default for this always comes up with the wrong drive (some other drive, generally the external drive). Unless I'm stupid or misunderstanding something, this is very wrong and very dangerous default behavior. Note: If I connect the SATA cable to the 1TB drive that has been my ubuntu 64-bit v10.04 system drive for the past 2 years, it boots up and runs fine. I guess there must be a log file somewhere, and maybe it gives some hints as to what the problem is. I should be able to boot off the 1TB drive with the 3TB drive connected as a secondary (non-boot) drive and get the log file, assuming there is one and someone tells me the name (and where to find it if the name is very generic). After installation on the 3TB drive completes and the system reboots, the following prints out on a black screen: Loading Operating System ... Boot from CD/DVD : Boot from CD/DVD : error: unknown filesystem grub rescue> Note: I have two DVD burners in the system, hence the duplicate line above. Note: I install and boot 64-bit ubuntu v12.04 on both of my 250GB in this same system, but still cannot make the 3TB drive boot. Sigh. Any ideas? ========== motherboard == gigabyte 990FXA-UD7 CPU == AMD FX-8150 8-core bulldozer @ 3.6 GHz RAM == 8GB of DDR3 in 2 sticks (matched pair) HDD == seagate 3TB SATA3 @ 7200 rpm (new install 64-bit v12.04 FAILS) HDD == seagate 1TB SATA3 @ 7200 rpm (64-bit v10.04 WORKS for two years) HDD == seagate 250GB SATA2 @ 7200 rpm (new install 64-bit v12.04 WORKS) HDD == seagate 250GB SATA2 @ 7200 rpm (new install 64-bit v12.04 WORKS) GPU == nvidia GTX-285 ??? == no overclocking or other funky business USB == external seagate 2TB HDD for making backups DVD == one bluray burner (SATA) DVD == one DVD burner (SATA) 64-bit ubuntu v10.04 has booted and run fine on the seagate 1TB drive for 2 years.

    Read the article

  • help: cannot make ubuntu 64-bit v12.04 install work

    - by honestann
    I decided it was time to update my ubuntu (single boot) computer from 64-bit v10.04 to 64-bit v12.04. Unfortunately, for some reason (or reasons) I just can't make it work. Note that I am attempting a fresh install of 64-bit v12.04 onto a new 3TB hard disk, not an upgrade of the 1TB hard disk that has contained my 64-bit v10.04 installation. To perform the attempted install of v12.04 I unplug the SATA cable from the 1TB drive and plug it into the 3TB drive (to avoid risking damage to my working v10.04 installation). I downloaded the ubuntu 64-bit v12.04 install DVD ISO file (~1.6 GB) from the ubuntu releases webpage and burned it onto a DVD. I have downloaded the DVD ISO file 3 times and burned 3 of these installation DVDs (twice with v10.04 and once with my winxp64 system), but none of them work. I run the "check disk" on the DVDs at the beginning of the installation process to assure the DVD is valid. I also tried to install on two older 250GB seagate drives in the same computer. During every attempt I plug the same SATA cable (sda) into only one disk drive (the 3TB or one of the 250GB drives) and leave the other disk drives unconnected (for simplicity). Installation takes about 30 minutes on the 250GB drives, and about 60 minutes on the 3TB drive - not sure why. When I install on the 250GB drives, the install process finishes, the computer reboots (after the install DVD is removed), but I get a grub error 15. It is my understanding that 64-bit ubuntu (and 64-bit linux in general) has no problem with 3TB disk drives. In the BIOS I have tried having EFI set to "enabled" and "auto" with no apparent difference (no success). I have tried partitioning the drive in a few ways to see if that makes a difference, but so far it has not mattered. Typically I manually create partitions something like this: 8GB swap 8GB /boot ext4 3TB / ext4 But I've also tried the following, just in case it matters: 100MB boot efi 8GB swap 8GB /boot ext4 3TB / ext4 Note: In the partition dialog I specify bootup on the same drive I am partitioning and installing ubuntu v12.04 onto. It is a VERY DANGEROUS FACT that the default for this always comes up with the wrong drive (some other drive, generally the external drive). Unless I'm stupid or misunderstanding something, this is very wrong and very dangerous default behavior. Note: If I connect the SATA cable to the 1TB drive that has been my ubuntu 64-bit v10.04 system drive for the past 2 years, it boots up and runs fine. I guess there must be a log file somewhere, and maybe it gives some hints as to what the problem is. I should be able to boot off the 1TB drive with the 3TB drive connected as a secondary (non-boot) drive and get the log file, assuming there is one and someone tells me the name (and where to find it if the name is very generic). After installation on the 3TB drive completes and the system reboots, the following prints out on a black screen: Loading Operating System ... Boot from CD/DVD : Boot from CD/DVD : error: unknown filesystem grub rescue Note: I have two DVD burners in the system, hence the duplicate line above. The same install and reboot on the 250GB drives generates "grub error 15". Sigh. Any ideas? ========== motherboard == gigabyte 990FXA-UD7 CPU == AMD FX-8150 8-core bulldozer @ 3.6 GHz RAM == 8GB of DDR3 in 2 sticks (matched pair) HDD == seagate 3TB SATA3 @ 7200 rpm (new install 64-bit v12.04) HDD == seagate 1TB SATA3 @ 7200 rpm (current install 64-bit v10.04) GPU == nvidia GTX-285 ??? == no overclocking or other funky business USB == external seagate 2TB HDD for making backups DVD == one bluray burner (SATA) DVD == one DVD burner (SATA) The current ubuntu 64-bit v10.04 system boots and runs fine on a seagate 1TB.

    Read the article

  • Inappropriate Updates?

    - by Tony Davis
    A recent Simple-talk article by Kathi Kellenberger dissected the fastest SQL solution, submitted by Peter Larsson as part of Phil Factor's SQL Speed Phreak challenge, to the classic "running total" problem. In its analysis of the code, the article re-ignited a heated debate regarding the techniques that should, and should not, be deemed acceptable in your search for fast SQL code. Peter's code for running total calculation uses a variation of a somewhat contentious technique, sometimes referred to as a "quirky update": SET @Subscribers = Subscribers = @Subscribers + PeopleJoined - PeopleLeft This form of the UPDATE statement, @variable = column = expression, is documented and it allows you to set a variable to the value returned by the expression. Microsoft does not guarantee the order in which rows are updated in this technique because, in relational theory, a table doesn’t have a natural order to its rows and the UPDATE statement has no means of specifying the order. Traditionally, in cases where a specific order is requires, such as for running aggregate calculations, programmers who used the technique have relied on the fact that the UPDATE statement, without the WHERE clause, is executed in the order imposed by the clustered index, or in heap order, if there isn’t one. Peter wasn’t satisfied with this, and so used the ingenious device of assuring the order of the UPDATE by the use of an "ordered CTE", based on an underlying temporary staging table (a heap). However, in either case, the ordering is still not guaranteed and, in addition, would be broken under conditions of parallelism, or partitioning. Many argue, with validity, that this reliance on a given order where none can ever be guaranteed is an abuse of basic relational principles, and so is a bad practice; perhaps even irresponsible. More importantly, Microsoft doesn't wish to support the technique and offers no guarantee that it will always work. If you put it into production and it breaks in a later version, you can't file a bug. As such, many believe that the technique should never be tolerated in a production system, under any circumstances. Is this attitude justified? After all, both forms of the technique, using a clustered index to guarantee the order or using an ordered CTE, have been tested rigorously and are proven to be robust; although not guaranteed by Microsoft, the ordering is reliable, provided none of the conditions that are known to break it are violated. In Peter's particular case, the technique is being applied to a temporary table, where the developer has full control of the data ordering, and indexing, and knows that the table will never be subject to parallelism or partitioning. It might be argued that, in such circumstances, the technique is not really "quirky" at all and to ban it from your systems would server no real purpose other than to deprive yourself of a reliable technique that has uses that extend well beyond the running total calculations. Of course, it is doubly important that such a technique, including its unsupported status and the assumptions that underpin its success, is fully and clearly documented, preferably even when posting it online in a competition or forum post. Ultimately, however, this technique has been available to programmers throughout the time Sybase and SQL Server has existed, and so cannot be lightly cast aside, even if one sympathises with Microsoft for the awkwardness of maintaining an archaic way of doing updates. After all, a Table hint could easily be devised that, if specified in the WITH (<Table_Hint_Limited>) clause, could be used to request the database engine to do the update in the conventional order. Then perhaps everyone would be satisfied. Cheers, Tony.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Partition Parallelism Support in expressor 3.6

    - by pinaldave
    I am very excited to learn that there is a new version of expressor’s data integration platform coming out in March of this year.  It will be version 3.6, and I look forward to using it and telling everyone about it.  Let me describe a little bit more about what will be so great in expressor 3.6: Greatly enhanced user interface Parallel Processing Bulk Artifact Upgrading The User Interface First let me cover the most obvious enhancements. The expressor Studio user interface (UI) has had some significant work done. Kudos to the expressor Engineering team; the entire UI is a visual masterpiece that is very responsive and intuitive. The improvements are more than just eye candy; they provide significant productivity gains when developing expressor Dataflows. Operator shape icons now include a description that identifies the function of each operator, instead of having to guess at the function by the icon. Operator shapes and highlighting depict the current function and status: Disabled, enabled, complete, incomplete, and error. Each status displays an appropriate message in the message panel with correction suggestions. Floating or docking property panels provide descriptive tool tips for each property as well as auto resize when adjusting the canvas, without having to search Help or the need to scroll around to get access to the property. Progress and status indicators let you know when an operation is working. “No limit” canvas with snap-to-grid allows automatic sizing and accurate positioning when you have numerous operators in the Dataflow. The inline tool bar offers quick access to pan, zoom, fit and overview functions. Selecting multiple artifacts with a right click context allows you to easily manage your workspace more efficiently. Partitioning and Parallel Processing Partitioning allows each operator to process multiple subsets of records in parallel as opposed to processing all records that flow through that operator in a single sequential set. This capability allows the user to configure the expressor Dataflow to run in a way that most efficiently utilizes the resources of the hardware where the Dataflow is running. Partitions can exist in most individual operators. Using partitions increases the speed of an expressor data integration application, therefore improving performance and load times. With the expressor 3.6 Enterprise Edition, expressor simplifies enabling parallel processing by adding intuitive partition settings that are easy to configure. Bulk Artifact Upgrading Bulk Artifact Upgrading sounds a bit intimidating, but it actually is not and it is a welcome addition to expressor Studio. In past releases, users were prompted to confirm that they wanted to upgrade their individual artifacts only when opened. This was a cumbersome and repetitive process. Now with bulk artifact upgrading, a user can easily select what artifact or group of artifacts to upgrade all at once. As you can see, there are many new features and upgrade options that will prove to make expressor Studio quicker and more efficient.  I hope I’m not the only one who is excited about all these new upgrades, and that I you try expressor and share your experience with me. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQLServer, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2005 standard filegroups / files for performance on SAN

    - by Blootac
    Ok so I've just been on a SQL Server course and we discussed the usage scenarios of multiple filegroups and files when in use over local RAID and local disks but we didn't touch SAN scenarios so my question is as follows; I currently have a 250 gig database running on SQL Server 2005 where some tables have a huge number of writes and others are fairly static. The database and all objects reside in a single file group with a single data file. The log file is also on the same volume. My interpretation is that separate data files should be used across different disks to lessen disk contention and that file groups should be used for partitioning of data. However, with a SAN you obviously don't really have the same issue of disk contention that you do with a small RAID setup (or at least we don't at the moment), and standard edition doesn't support partitioning. So in order to improve parallelism what should I do? My understanding of various Microsoft publications is that if I increase the number of data files, separate threads can act across each file separately. Which leads me to the question how many files should I have. One per core? Should I be putting tables and indexes with high levels of activity in separate file groups, each with the same number of data files as we have cores? Thank you

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Search Proper Names Full Text Index vs LIKE + SOUNDEX

    - by Matthew Talbert
    I have a database of names of people that has (currently) 35 million rows. I need to know what is the best method for quickly searching these names. The current system (not designed by me), simply has the first and last name columns indexed and uses "LIKE" queries with the additional option of using SOUNDEX (though I'm not sure this is actually used much). Performance has always been a problem with this system, and so currently the searches are limited to 200 results (which still takes too long to run). So, I have a few questions: Does full text index work well for proper names? If so, what is the best way to query proper names? (CONTAINS, FREETEXT, etc) Is there some other system (like Lucene.net) that would be better? Just for reference, I'm using Fluent NHibernate for data access, so methods that work will with that will be preferred. I'm using SQL Server 2008 currently. EDIT I want to add that I'm very interested in solutions that will deal with things like commonly misspelled names, eg 'smythe', 'smith', as well as first names, eg 'tomas', 'thomas'. Query Plan |--Parallelism(Gather Streams) |--Nested Loops(Inner Join, OUTER REFERENCES:([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[Id], [Expr1004]) OPTIMIZED WITH UNORDERED PREFETCH) |--Hash Match(Inner Join, HASH:([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[Id])=([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[Id])) | |--Bitmap(HASH:([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[Id]), DEFINE:([Bitmap1003])) | | |--Parallelism(Repartition Streams, Hash Partitioning, PARTITION COLUMNS:([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[Id])) | | |--Index Seek(OBJECT:([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[IX_Test_LastName]), SEEK:([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[LastName] >= 'WHITDþ' AND [testdb].[dbo].[Test].[LastName] < 'WHITF'), WHERE:([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[LastName] like 'WHITE%') ORDERED FORWARD) | |--Parallelism(Repartition Streams, Hash Partitioning, PARTITION COLUMNS:([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[Id])) | |--Index Seek(OBJECT:([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[IX_Test_FirstName]), SEEK:([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[FirstName] >= 'THOMARþ' AND [testdb].[dbo].[Test].[FirstName] < 'THOMAT'), WHERE:([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[FirstName] like 'THOMAS%' AND PROBE([Bitmap1003],[testdb].[dbo].[Test].[Id],N'[IN ROW]')) ORDERED FORWARD) |--Clustered Index Seek(OBJECT:([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[PK__TEST__3214EC073B95D2F1]), SEEK:([testdb].[dbo].[Test].[Id]=[testdb].[dbo].[Test].[Id]) LOOKUP ORDERED FORWARD) SQL for above: SELECT * FROM testdb.dbo.Test WHERE LastName LIKE 'WHITE%' AND FirstName LIKE 'THOMAS%' Based on advice from Mitch, I created an index like this: CREATE INDEX IX_Test_Name_DOB ON Test (LastName ASC, FirstName ASC, BirthDate ASC) INCLUDE (and here I list the other columns) My searches are now incredibly fast for my typical search (last, first, and birth date).

    Read the article

  • Dropping all user tables/sequences in Oracle

    - by Ambience
    As part of our build process and evolving database, I'm trying to create a script which will remove all of the tables and sequences for a user. I don't want to do recreate the user as this will require more permissions than allowed. My script creates a procedure to drop the tables/sequences, executes the procedure, and then drops the procedure. I'm executing the file from sqlplus: drop.sql: create or replace procedure drop_all_cdi_tables is cur integer; begin cur:= dbms_sql.OPEN_CURSOR(); for t in (select table_name from user_tables) loop execute immediate 'drop table ' ||t.table_name|| ' cascade constraints'; end loop; dbms_sql.close_cursor(cur); cur:= dbms_sql.OPEN_CURSOR(); for t in (select sequence_name from user_sequences) loop execute immediate 'drop sequence ' ||t.sequence_name; end loop; dbms_sql.close_cursor(cur); end; / execute drop_all_cdi_tables; / drop procedure drop_all_cdi_tables; / Unfortunately, dropping the procedure causes a problem. There seems to cause a race condition and the procedure is dropped before it executes. E.g.: SQL*Plus: Release 11.1.0.7.0 - Production on Tue Mar 30 18:45:42 2010 Copyright (c) 1982, 2008, Oracle. All rights reserved. Connected to: Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.1.0.7.0 - 64bit Production With the Partitioning, OLAP, Data Mining and Real Application Testing options Procedure created. PL/SQL procedure successfully completed. Procedure created. Procedure dropped. drop procedure drop_all_user_tables * ERROR at line 1: ORA-04043: object DROP_ALL_USER_TABLES does not exist SQL Disconnected from Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.1.0.7.0 - 64 With the Partitioning, OLAP, Data Mining and Real Application Testing options Any ideas on how to get this working?

    Read the article

  • how to split a very large database on sql server

    - by ken jackson
    I have a 90 GB SQL Server database that I want to make more manageable. It stores stock data from 50+ different stocks from 2009 and 2010, and each stock is a separate table. Some tables have hundreds of millions of rows, and other have just a few million. What I want to do is somehow split the database, so that I don't have a single database file that is 90 GB. What I want is to be able to somehow magically split all the tables so that I can backup the 2009 data once and not have to keep on including it in the backup every time I backup the entire database, however, I would like the 2009 data to be included whenever I do a query. Is partitioning the database the way to go? Will it do the above for me, or will I need some other solution? I research partitioning, but I wasn't sure if that would solve all my problems. I wasn't able to find anything that would tell me whether or not it would migrate prexisting data, or whether it only worked for newly inserted data. Any help or pointers would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Ken

    Read the article

  • MySQL Paritioning performance

    - by Imran Pathan
    Measured performance on key partitioned tables and normal tables separately. But we couldn't find any performance improvement with partitioning. Queries are pruned. Using MySQL 5.1.47 on RHEL 4. Table details: UserUsage - Will have entries for user mobile number and data usage for each date. Mobile number and Date as PRI KEY. UserProfile - Queries prev table and stores summary for each mobile number. Mobile number PRI KEY. CREATE TABLE `UserUsage` ( `Msisdn` decimal(20,0) NOT NULL, `Date` date NOT NULL, . . PRIMARY KEY USING BTREE (`Msisdn`,`Date`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 PARTITION BY KEY(Msisdn) PARTITIONS 50; CREATE TABLE `UserProfile` ( `Msisdn` decimal(20,0) NOT NULL, . . PRIMARY KEY (`Msisdn`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 PARTITION BY KEY(Msisdn) PARTITIONS 50; Second table is updated by query select and order by date in first table in a perl program, query is select * from UserUsage where Msisdn=number order by Date desc limit 7 [Process data in perl] update UserProfile values(....) where Msisdn=number explain partition for select, shows row being scanned in a particular partition only. Is something wrong with partition design or queries as partitioning is taking almost same or more time compared to normal tables?

    Read the article

  • Seeking on a Heap, and Two Useful DMVs

    - by Paul White
    So far in this mini-series on seeks and scans, we have seen that a simple ‘seek’ operation can be much more complex than it first appears.  A seek can contain one or more seek predicates – each of which can either identify at most one row in a unique index (a singleton lookup) or a range of values (a range scan).  When looking at a query plan, we will often need to look at the details of the seek operator in the Properties window to see how many operations it is performing, and what type of operation each one is.  As you saw in the first post in this series, the number of hidden seeking operations can have an appreciable impact on performance. Measuring Seeks and Scans I mentioned in my last post that there is no way to tell from a graphical query plan whether you are seeing a singleton lookup or a range scan.  You can work it out – if you happen to know that the index is defined as unique and the seek predicate is an equality comparison, but there’s no separate property that says ‘singleton lookup’ or ‘range scan’.  This is a shame, and if I had my way, the query plan would show different icons for range scans and singleton lookups – perhaps also indicating whether the operation was one or more of those operations underneath the covers. In light of all that, you might be wondering if there is another way to measure how many seeks of either type are occurring in your system, or for a particular query.  As is often the case, the answer is yes – we can use a couple of dynamic management views (DMVs): sys.dm_db_index_usage_stats and sys.dm_db_index_operational_stats. Index Usage Stats The index usage stats DMV contains counts of index operations from the perspective of the Query Executor (QE) – the SQL Server component that is responsible for executing the query plan.  It has three columns that are of particular interest to us: user_seeks – the number of times an Index Seek operator appears in an executed plan user_scans – the number of times a Table Scan or Index Scan operator appears in an executed plan user_lookups – the number of times an RID or Key Lookup operator appears in an executed plan An operator is counted once per execution (generating an estimated plan does not affect the totals), so an Index Seek that executes 10,000 times in a single plan execution adds 1 to the count of user seeks.  Even less intuitively, an operator is also counted once per execution even if it is not executed at all.  I will show you a demonstration of each of these things later in this post. Index Operational Stats The index operational stats DMV contains counts of index and table operations from the perspective of the Storage Engine (SE).  It contains a wealth of interesting information, but the two columns of interest to us right now are: range_scan_count – the number of range scans (including unrestricted full scans) on a heap or index structure singleton_lookup_count – the number of singleton lookups in a heap or index structure This DMV counts each SE operation, so 10,000 singleton lookups will add 10,000 to the singleton lookup count column, and a table scan that is executed 5 times will add 5 to the range scan count. The Test Rig To explore the behaviour of seeks and scans in detail, we will need to create a test environment.  The scripts presented here are best run on SQL Server 2008 Developer Edition, but the majority of the tests will work just fine on SQL Server 2005.  A couple of tests use partitioning, but these will be skipped if you are not running an Enterprise-equivalent SKU.  Ok, first up we need a database: USE master; GO IF DB_ID('ScansAndSeeks') IS NOT NULL DROP DATABASE ScansAndSeeks; GO CREATE DATABASE ScansAndSeeks; GO USE ScansAndSeeks; GO ALTER DATABASE ScansAndSeeks SET ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION OFF ; ALTER DATABASE ScansAndSeeks SET AUTO_CLOSE OFF, AUTO_SHRINK OFF, AUTO_CREATE_STATISTICS OFF, AUTO_UPDATE_STATISTICS OFF, PARAMETERIZATION SIMPLE, READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT OFF, RESTRICTED_USER ; Notice that several database options are set in particular ways to ensure we get meaningful and reproducible results from the DMVs.  In particular, the options to auto-create and update statistics are disabled.  There are also three stored procedures, the first of which creates a test table (which may or may not be partitioned).  The table is pretty much the same one we used yesterday: The table has 100 rows, and both the key_col and data columns contain the same values – the integers from 1 to 100 inclusive.  The table is a heap, with a non-clustered primary key on key_col, and a non-clustered non-unique index on the data column.  The only reason I have used a heap here, rather than a clustered table, is so I can demonstrate a seek on a heap later on.  The table has an extra column (not shown because I am too lazy to update the diagram from yesterday) called padding – a CHAR(100) column that just contains 100 spaces in every row.  It’s just there to discourage SQL Server from choosing table scan over an index + RID lookup in one of the tests. The first stored procedure is called ResetTest: CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.ResetTest @Partitioned BIT = 'false' AS BEGIN SET NOCOUNT ON ; IF OBJECT_ID(N'dbo.Example', N'U') IS NOT NULL BEGIN DROP TABLE dbo.Example; END ; -- Test table is a heap -- Non-clustered primary key on 'key_col' CREATE TABLE dbo.Example ( key_col INTEGER NOT NULL, data INTEGER NOT NULL, padding CHAR(100) NOT NULL DEFAULT SPACE(100), CONSTRAINT [PK dbo.Example key_col] PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED (key_col) ) ; IF @Partitioned = 'true' BEGIN -- Enterprise, Trial, or Developer -- required for partitioning tests IF SERVERPROPERTY('EngineEdition') = 3 BEGIN EXECUTE (' DROP TABLE dbo.Example ; IF EXISTS ( SELECT 1 FROM sys.partition_schemes WHERE name = N''PS'' ) DROP PARTITION SCHEME PS ; IF EXISTS ( SELECT 1 FROM sys.partition_functions WHERE name = N''PF'' ) DROP PARTITION FUNCTION PF ; CREATE PARTITION FUNCTION PF (INTEGER) AS RANGE RIGHT FOR VALUES (20, 40, 60, 80, 100) ; CREATE PARTITION SCHEME PS AS PARTITION PF ALL TO ([PRIMARY]) ; CREATE TABLE dbo.Example ( key_col INTEGER NOT NULL, data INTEGER NOT NULL, padding CHAR(100) NOT NULL DEFAULT SPACE(100), CONSTRAINT [PK dbo.Example key_col] PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED (key_col) ) ON PS (key_col); '); END ELSE BEGIN RAISERROR('Invalid SKU for partition test', 16, 1); RETURN; END; END ; -- Non-unique non-clustered index on the 'data' column CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX dbo.Example data] ON dbo.Example (data) ; -- Add 100 rows INSERT dbo.Example WITH (TABLOCKX) ( key_col, data ) SELECT key_col = V.number, data = V.number FROM master.dbo.spt_values AS V WHERE V.[type] = N'P' AND V.number BETWEEN 1 AND 100 ; END; GO The second stored procedure, ShowStats, displays information from the Index Usage Stats and Index Operational Stats DMVs: CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.ShowStats @Partitioned BIT = 'false' AS BEGIN -- Index Usage Stats DMV (QE) SELECT index_name = ISNULL(I.name, I.type_desc), scans = IUS.user_scans, seeks = IUS.user_seeks, lookups = IUS.user_lookups FROM sys.dm_db_index_usage_stats AS IUS JOIN sys.indexes AS I ON I.object_id = IUS.object_id AND I.index_id = IUS.index_id WHERE IUS.database_id = DB_ID(N'ScansAndSeeks') AND IUS.object_id = OBJECT_ID(N'dbo.Example', N'U') ORDER BY I.index_id ; -- Index Operational Stats DMV (SE) IF @Partitioned = 'true' SELECT index_name = ISNULL(I.name, I.type_desc), partitions = COUNT(IOS.partition_number), range_scans = SUM(IOS.range_scan_count), single_lookups = SUM(IOS.singleton_lookup_count) FROM sys.dm_db_index_operational_stats ( DB_ID(N'ScansAndSeeks'), OBJECT_ID(N'dbo.Example', N'U'), NULL, NULL ) AS IOS JOIN sys.indexes AS I ON I.object_id = IOS.object_id AND I.index_id = IOS.index_id GROUP BY I.index_id, -- Key I.name, I.type_desc ORDER BY I.index_id; ELSE SELECT index_name = ISNULL(I.name, I.type_desc), range_scans = SUM(IOS.range_scan_count), single_lookups = SUM(IOS.singleton_lookup_count) FROM sys.dm_db_index_operational_stats ( DB_ID(N'ScansAndSeeks'), OBJECT_ID(N'dbo.Example', N'U'), NULL, NULL ) AS IOS JOIN sys.indexes AS I ON I.object_id = IOS.object_id AND I.index_id = IOS.index_id GROUP BY I.index_id, -- Key I.name, I.type_desc ORDER BY I.index_id; END; The final stored procedure, RunTest, executes a query written against the example table: CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.RunTest @SQL VARCHAR(8000), @Partitioned BIT = 'false' AS BEGIN -- No execution plan yet SET STATISTICS XML OFF ; -- Reset the test environment EXECUTE dbo.ResetTest @Partitioned ; -- Previous call will throw an error if a partitioned -- test was requested, but SKU does not support it IF @@ERROR = 0 BEGIN -- IO statistics and plan on SET STATISTICS XML, IO ON ; -- Test statement EXECUTE (@SQL) ; -- Plan and IO statistics off SET STATISTICS XML, IO OFF ; EXECUTE dbo.ShowStats @Partitioned; END; END; The Tests The first test is a simple scan of the heap table: EXECUTE dbo.RunTest @SQL = 'SELECT * FROM Example'; The top result set comes from the Index Usage Stats DMV, so it is the Query Executor’s (QE) view.  The lower result is from Index Operational Stats, which shows statistics derived from the actions taken by the Storage Engine (SE).  We see that QE performed 1 scan operation on the heap, and SE performed a single range scan.  Let’s try a single-value equality seek on a unique index next: EXECUTE dbo.RunTest @SQL = 'SELECT key_col FROM Example WHERE key_col = 32'; This time we see a single seek on the non-clustered primary key from QE, and one singleton lookup on the same index by the SE.  Now for a single-value seek on the non-unique non-clustered index: EXECUTE dbo.RunTest @SQL = 'SELECT data FROM Example WHERE data = 32'; QE shows a single seek on the non-clustered non-unique index, but SE shows a single range scan on that index – not the singleton lookup we saw in the previous test.  That makes sense because we know that only a single-value seek into a unique index is a singleton seek.  A single-value seek into a non-unique index might retrieve any number of rows, if you think about it.  The next query is equivalent to the IN list example seen in the first post in this series, but it is written using OR (just for variety, you understand): EXECUTE dbo.RunTest @SQL = 'SELECT data FROM Example WHERE data = 32 OR data = 33'; The plan looks the same, and there’s no difference in the stats recorded by QE, but the SE shows two range scans.  Again, these are range scans because we are looking for two values in the data column, which is covered by a non-unique index.  I’ve added a snippet from the Properties window to show that the query plan does show two seek predicates, not just one.  Now let’s rewrite the query using BETWEEN: EXECUTE dbo.RunTest @SQL = 'SELECT data FROM Example WHERE data BETWEEN 32 AND 33'; Notice the seek operator only has one predicate now – it’s just a single range scan from 32 to 33 in the index – as the SE output shows.  For the next test, we will look up four values in the key_col column: EXECUTE dbo.RunTest @SQL = 'SELECT key_col FROM Example WHERE key_col IN (2,4,6,8)'; Just a single seek on the PK from the Query Executor, but four singleton lookups reported by the Storage Engine – and four seek predicates in the Properties window.  On to a more complex example: EXECUTE dbo.RunTest @SQL = 'SELECT * FROM Example WITH (INDEX([PK dbo.Example key_col])) WHERE key_col BETWEEN 1 AND 8'; This time we are forcing use of the non-clustered primary key to return eight rows.  The index is not covering for this query, so the query plan includes an RID lookup into the heap to fetch the data and padding columns.  The QE reports a seek on the PK and a lookup on the heap.  The SE reports a single range scan on the PK (to find key_col values between 1 and 8), and eight singleton lookups on the heap.  Remember that a bookmark lookup (RID or Key) is a seek to a single value in a ‘unique index’ – it finds a row in the heap or cluster from a unique RID or clustering key – so that’s why lookups are always singleton lookups, not range scans. Our next example shows what happens when a query plan operator is not executed at all: EXECUTE dbo.RunTest @SQL = 'SELECT key_col FROM Example WHERE key_col = 8 AND @@TRANCOUNT < 0'; The Filter has a start-up predicate which is always false (if your @@TRANCOUNT is less than zero, call CSS immediately).  The index seek is never executed, but QE still records a single seek against the PK because the operator appears once in an executed plan.  The SE output shows no activity at all.  This next example is 2008 and above only, I’m afraid: EXECUTE dbo.RunTest @SQL = 'SELECT * FROM Example WHERE key_col BETWEEN 1 AND 30', @Partitioned = 'true'; This is the first example to use a partitioned table.  QE reports a single seek on the heap (yes – a seek on a heap), and the SE reports two range scans on the heap.  SQL Server knows (from the partitioning definition) that it only needs to look at partitions 1 and 2 to find all the rows where key_col is between 1 and 30 – the engine seeks to find the two partitions, and performs a range scan seek on each partition. The final example for today is another seek on a heap – try to work out the output of the query before running it! EXECUTE dbo.RunTest @SQL = 'SELECT TOP (2) WITH TIES * FROM Example WHERE key_col BETWEEN 1 AND 50 ORDER BY $PARTITION.PF(key_col) DESC', @Partitioned = 'true'; Notice the lack of an explicit Sort operator in the query plan to enforce the ORDER BY clause, and the backward range scan. © 2011 Paul White email: [email protected] twitter: @SQL_Kiwi

    Read the article

  • HT Link Sync Error after Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Installation

    - by marklab
    Update 1 I just assembled an exact replica of this server, and successfully installed Ubuntu 10.04 LTS in a RAID10 configuration. The success was confirmed by a login to the initial account. There must be a hardware component that is faulty. Since the error mentions HT, which I believe to be Hyper Threading, I will start with the CPUs. Please indicate if this error is more strongly associated with any other piece of hardware. Or make a recommendation of another approach that would be good for this issue. Issue I was attempting to install Ubuntu 10.04 LTS on this system with the board RAID10 configured. However, the installation failed at the partitioning stage by rebooting the system. Upon reboot, there is an error report after POST listing the following: Node0: NB WatchDog Timer Error Node1: HT Link Sync Error Node2: HT Link Sync Error ... Node7: HT Link Sync Error Press F1 to continue/resume. After pressing F1 the system will boot from the Ubuntu 10.04 LTS installation disc. However, it will fail at the same stage, and go through the same process from there. Hardware CPU: AMD OPTERON X12 6172 G34 2.1G 18MB Motherboard: Supermicro H8QG6-F HDD: WD Caviar Green 2TB 5.4K RPM Troubleshooting I disabled RAID10 on the system, and installed the Ubuntu on a single drive. It installed successfully. I then went back to a RAID10 setup and attempted to install on the system again, and was able to make it through the partitioning stage. However, upon reboot, the system reported: Error: file not found, and then booted me into the Grub Rescue console. I feel I have aggravated the problem at this point because when I attempted to install from the boot disc again, the system reboots upon hitting enter to even start the installation process. It does the same thing when trying to boot from an Ubuntu 11 disc. I have not been able to find any information on this HT Link Sync Error, which I feel may have started the problems I am experiencing now with the installation of the OS. I am also aware that Ubuntu is said not to be supported by the motherboard according to Supermicro's site. However, since I was able to install it successfully on a single drive, I do not believe it is incompatible. I would like to know a reason for why it's failing to install on/off.

    Read the article

  • Remove Mac OS X and install Windows?

    - by user18948
    Is there a way to completely remove Mac OS X from MacBook Pro and replace it with Windows 7? I’m not talking about Boot Camp, I’m talking about completely wiping disk of any files and partitioning it for Windows installation. Any BIOS, booting, compatibility problems? I know it’s rare to replace Mac OS X for Windows, but I have this one situation where this is needed so I would appreciate any help. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to partition a Flash Drive?

    - by Nrew
    Do you know of any way on how to partition a flash drive. Specifically an 8gb toshiba flash drive. I have tried using lexar usb format:http://tinyurl.com/m7qkbw But there was no luck, Do yo know of any application that could do flash drive partitioning. I really wanted to have a bootable flash drive but can still store my files on a different partition.

    Read the article

  • Help installing fedora13 from DvD?

    - by user38008
    I have windows xp on my dell but I lost the drivers disk so I want to install linux Fedora 13 instead and wipe the windows xp. I burned the iso to a dvd and loaded up the live session user and used "Install to harddrive" but when I get to the partitioning window there is no harddrives to install to so I cant overwrite the windows drive (/C:).. Help?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >