I have names in the database which I want partition by last name - for example last names starting with A, B, C, D should go to the file group 1. last names starting with E, F, G, H should go to file group 2.
I am trying to use the following function - but do I specify in the function that last names with with A, B, C, D should go to the file group 1
CREATE PARTITION FUNCTION myRangePF3 (char(20))
AS RANGE RIGHT FOR VALUES ('EX', 'RXE', 'XR');
Is there any way to modify partition function to accomplish this?
I can't seem to find a way to do the following:create table part_table (col1 int,col2 datetime) on psX (datename(week,col2))I want to partition based on the week number of a date field.So if I enter in data like the following in my part_table:(1, 1/1/2007) should go into partition 1 for week #1(52, 12/21/2007) should go into partition 52 for week #52 of the yearI tried adding in a computed column, but it says its nondeterministic.
I am facing issue in generating total sum and daily sum from table ThresholdData.
DailyTransactionAmount should be sum of todays amount in the table TransactionAmount should be sum of all amount in the table.
Basically,
1. I don't want to scan ThresholdData table twice. 2. I don't want to create temporary table/table variable/CTE for this. 3. Is there is any way to make it done in single query.
I hope, where criteria is not possible in partition function. I am trying query something as given below,
SELECT TransactionDate, TransactionAmount, ROW_NUMBER() over (order by TransactionDate) AS TransactionCount, SUM(TransactionAmount) over (partition by id ) AS TransactionAmount, SUM(TransactionAmount) over (partition by id ,CONVERT (DATE, @TodaysTransactionDate)) AS DailyTransactionAmount FROM ThresholdData WHERE id = @id AND transactiondate >= dateadd(d,-@TransactionDaysLimit,@TodaysTransactionDate)
Hi,I need to create a partition table but the column on which I need tocreate a partition may not have any logical ranges. So while creatingor defining partition function I can not use any range.likeCREATE PARTITION FUNCTION my_part_func (NUMERIC(7)) AS RANGE LEFT FORVALUES (1,100,1000);Is there any way to define partition function in SQL Server somethinglike Oracle HASH partitions where logical range is unkown?ThanksSameer
DECLARE @DatePartitionFunction nvarchar(max) = N'CREATE PARTITION FUNCTION DatePartitionFunction (datetime) AS RANGE RIGHT FOR VALUES ('; DECLARE @i datetime = '2007-09-01 00:00:00.000'; WHILE @i < '2008-10-01 00:00:00.000' BEGIN SET @DatePartitionFunction += '''' + CAST(@i as nvarchar(10)) + '''' + N', ';
[Code] ....
Msg 7705, Level 16, State 2, Line 1 Could not implicitly convert range values type specified at ordinal 1 to partition function parameter type.
However if I change to datetime2 it works
DECLARE @DatePartitionFunction nvarchar(max) = N'CREATE PARTITION FUNCTION DatePartitionFunction (datetime2) AS RANGE RIGHT FOR VALUES ('; DECLARE @i datetime2 = '2007-09-01 00:00:00.000'; WHILE @i < '2008-10-01 00:00:00.000' BEGIN SET @DatePartitionFunction += '''' + CAST(@i as nvarchar(10)) + '''' + N', ';
[Code] ...
Is the data type of the column used for partitioning. All data types are valid for use as partitioning columns, except text, ntext, image, xml, timestamp, varchar(max), nvarchar(max), varbinary(max), alias data types, or CLR user-defined data types.
In this case why isn't datetime works?
version is as follow:
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 (SP1) - 11.0.3128.0 (X64) Dec 28 2012 20:23:12 Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Evaluation Edition (64-bit) on Windows NT 6.1 <X64> (Build 7601: Service Pack 1)
from [URL] .....
Table and index partitioning is supported in this edition
I have a heavy database , More than 100 GB only for six month .every Query on it takes me along time and I dont have enough space to add more indexes.by a way I decided to do partitioning. I create a partition function , on date filed and all Data records per month was appointed to a separate file.And is partitioning only for Future data entry?
I'm currently stuck with a table that has 350 mil records. Querying this table is insanely slow so I had a better look at existing yearly partitioning. I already managed to partition on a month level which increased the performance/querrying a lot. I did this on the staging table where I used an alter statement to split the 2015 partition by 12 months.
However, in our project we used Data Vault. This means that we have 4 tables (hub, sathub, link, satlink), all carrying 350 mil records. The problem is that altering the partition function does not work. The server cannot handle this action. What the best way is to do this, without having to drop/reload all tables.
Can someone take a look at my code and tell me what i'm doing in wrong. The script runs fine but when i go to table property it says the table is not partitioned. Thanks for your help.
create database [mypartition] go
--CREATE FILEGROUP USE [mypartition] GO ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILEGROUP Y2000_filegroup ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILEGROUP Y2001_filegroup ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILEGROUP Y2002_filegroup ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILEGROUP Y2003_filegroup ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILEGROUP Y2004_filegroup ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILEGROUP Y2005_filegroup ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILEGROUP Y2006_filegroup ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILEGROUP Y2007_filegroup ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILEGROUP Y2008_filegroup ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILEGROUP Y2009_filegroup
--CREATE FILES USE mypartition GO ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILE (NAME = mypartition_detail_2000, FILENAME = 'F:ss_datadatadetail_2000.ndf', SIZE = 2MB) TO FILEGROUP Y2000_filegroup; ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILE (NAME = mypartition_detail_2001, FILENAME = 'F:ss_datadatadetail_2001.ndf', SIZE = 2MB) TO FILEGROUP Y2001_filegroup; ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILE (NAME = mypartition_detail_2002, FILENAME = 'F:ss_datadatamdetail_2002.ndf', SIZE = 2MB) TO FILEGROUP Y2002_filegroup; ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILE (NAME = mypartition_detail_2003, FILENAME = 'F:ss_datadatadetail_2003.ndf', SIZE = 2MB) TO FILEGROUP Y2003_filegroup; ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILE (NAME = mypartition_detail_2004, FILENAME = 'F:ss_datadatadetail_2004.ndf', SIZE = 2MB) TO FILEGROUP Y2004_filegroup; ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILE (NAME = mypartition_detail_2005, FILENAME = 'F:ss_datadatadetail_2005.ndf', SIZE = 2MB) TO FILEGROUP Y2005_filegroup; ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILE (NAME = mypartition_detail_2006, FILENAME = 'F:ss_datadatadetail_2006.ndf', SIZE = 2MB) TO FILEGROUP Y2006_filegroup; ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILE (NAME = mypartition_detail_2007, FILENAME = 'F:ss_datadatadetail_2007.ndf', SIZE = 2MB) TO FILEGROUP Y2007_filegroup; ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILE (NAME = mypartition_detail_2008, FILENAME = 'F:ss_datadatadetail_2008.ndf', SIZE = 2MB) TO FILEGROUP Y2008_filegroup; ALTER DATABASE mypartition ADD FILE (NAME = mypartition_detail_2009, FILENAME = 'F:ss_datadatadetail_2009.ndf', SIZE = 2MB) TO FILEGROUP Y2009_filegroup;
--CREATE PARTITION FUNCTION USE [mypartition] GO CREATE partition FUNCTION detail_part_function (varchar(10)) AS RANGE LEFT FOR VALUES('2001','2002','2003','2004','2005','2006','2007','2008') GO
--CREATE PARTITION SCHEME USE [mypartition] GO CREATE PARTITION SCHEME detail_part_scheme AS PARTITION detail_part_function TO (Y2000_filegroup, Y2001_filegroup,Y2002_filegroup,Y2003_filegroup,Y2004_filegroup,Y2005_filegroup,Y2006_filegroup,Y2007_filegroup,Y2008_filegroup,Y2009_filegroup) GO
-- Now just create a table that uses the particion scheme USE [mypartition] GO /****** Object: Table [dbo].[partitioned_table] Script Date: 05/14/2008 09:44:21 ******/ SET ANSI_NULLS ON GO SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON GO SET ANSI_PADDING ON GO CREATE TABLE [dbo].[partitioned_table]( [id] [int] NOT NULL, [fiscal_year] [varchar](10) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_partitioned_table] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [id] ASC )WITH (IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF) ON [PRIMARY] ) ON detail_part_scheme(fiscal_year)
I can see lot of documentation on Range Partitioning. Is there any other type of partition supported in SQL Server 2005?
For example, I have a Fact table having Billion rows. It has a column called BATCH_ID. A BATCH_ID corresponds to 10-20 Million rows and it is a running sequence number like 1,2,3 etc. (not an identity column). Is there anyway I can specify a partition function with BATCH_ID column as an int value? Will the SQL Server automatically does the partition on each int value in that case? If not, what is the best way to do it?
Hi, I recently installed MSSQL 2000 and sp3a onto a windows 2003 server in a test lab. I configured one big c: partion on this os and installed the db in the default location.
I need to detach the db's on this server and re-attach them onto another MSSQL 2000/sp3a server running 2003 os with a partition scheme like this:
c: = 20 gigs for the os e: = 600 gigs for the data
I could not re-attach the db's onto the e:default path odatabase
Is there a work-around for this? This makes sense to me as to why it is not working and was an install oversight on my part but there has to be a way to overcome this delima?
Please help me how to do the Horizontal table partition?? I have to split the table in to multiple sub tables with same columns and less rows and then I have to use each sub table.
Msg 156, Level 15, State 1, Line 12 Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'over'.
What am I missing? The max() over statement looks just like the statement in the documentation.
select RegistrationId, OrderId, Sequence, Title, InformalFirstName, FirstName, MiddleName, Lastname, EntryDate, max(Sequence) over(partition by RegistrationId) as 'maxsequence' from registration where OrderId = '68379449583' and Year = '2008' and Active = 'Yes'
I have a situation where my SQL works everywhere else but my COBOL compiler complains wherever I use PARTITION BY. I can't find a workaround for that problem so I would like to remove all the PARTITION BYs. I'm not confident that I can do this accurately and would like some help getting started.
Here is my simplest example:
SELECT FESOR.REGION, FESOR.TYPE, COUNT(*) OVER (PARTITION BY FESOR.REGION, FESOR.TYPE) FROM FESOR, FR where FESOR.phase = 'Ref' and FESOR.assign is null and FESOR.comp_date is null and FESOR.region = FR.REGION and FESOR.type = FR.TYPE and FR.REP_ROW='A' GROUP BY FESOR.REGION, FESOR.TYPE
What I'm looking for is a modified version of the SQL above which returns the same result set without using PARTITION BY.
I am in the progress of migrating my 2000 install over to SQL05 and onto a couple of new boxes. I have 2 Dell 1850's to set up mirroring on and wanted to know your opinion on the best partition setup. The 1850's are a 2 disk machine so it has to be a RAID 1 setup. I am just unsure of the benefit of partitioning the logical drive to seperate the log files from the data files.
Should I partition the drive, a 300G SCSI into 2 partitions and keep the logs on one partition and the data on another? Can anyone tell me if there is a benefit to doing this?
If there is a more pratical solution can you explain?
Most examples for SQL Server 2005 involve a sales table that you split based on date, i.e. sales records prior to 2000 go to this partition, and the ones after that go to another one. Nice and simple.
Say I have a sales table:
id Amount Date 1 10 1/1/1999 2 9.99 1/1/2007
Now then, I put all the records prior to 2000 in it's own partition.
So when I do something like this: SELECT * FROM Sales WHERE DATE = 1/1/1999 the SQL server will know which partition to look at. Very nice.
Now then, if I do this: SELECT * FROM Sales WHERE id = 1 How will the SQL server know which partition to look at?
i have a table named stgBudgetFact, that is partitioned on DivisionID.
each DivisionID goes into its own partition, which is on its own file group.
the etl guru on the project wants to be able to truncate the partition, not do a delete from the table based on DivisionID.
Is it possible to truncate the partition somehow (remove rows where DivisionID = 3 for instance without ALTER DATABASE, where the medicine is worse than the disease) and then reestablish the partition so we can restart a failed load by division?
Sorry if my post misplaced. I have a table that contain huge data so I made a partition function and partition schema. Unfortunately there's only one column to be allowed as a partition column whereas my queries using a few columns. Can we make many partition function that apply to one partition schema ? I search no result in SQL BOL. Thanks in advance.
Does anyone know how much free space should be left available on a storage partition to allow for the optimum performance? In fact is there any performance benefit to allowing a certain amount of free space on a partition that is occupied by SQL data files?
How complex can the over (partition by...) window functions be? All the examples I see in BoL, the partition clause is the same for each window function. Can it be different? How different?
Here are some snippets of where I'd like to take this. Right now I'm using successive views to bring the results to a single row.
SUM(building_function_table.e_and_g_square_foot + building_function_table.auxillary_square_foot) OVER (PARTITION BY building_function_table.fice_code, building_function_table.building_number) AS sqft
SUM(building_function_table.e_and_g_square_foot * function_table.square_foot_value) OVER (PARTITION BY building_function_table.fice_code, building_function_table.building_number,building_function_table.function_code) AS repl_value_e_g
SUM(building_needs_table.percentage * (building_needs_table.age / system_component_table.useful_life) * component_multiplier_table.multiplier) OVER (PARTITION BY building_needs_table.fice_code, building_needs_table.building_number, building_needs_table.system_code, building_needs_table.system_component_code, building_needs_table.function_code) as maint_needs
And it gets even more complex, but these are all I've written because I don't know if it will work.
These would be all part of a giant overhead view of a building maintenance database. It's normalized and the respective tables above are all simple inner joins on the primary key of their parent.
1 HIS_HTTP_LOG a partition table2 REL_HTTP_LOG not a partition table,the same structure of HIS_HTTP_LOG；3 When HIS_HTTP_LOG doesn't exist any index the following executed succeed ALTER PARTITION SCHEME PS_HIS_HTTP_LOG NEXT USED [FG_03] ALTER PARTITION FUNCTION PF_HIS_HTTP_LOG() SPLIT RANGE ('20070331 23:59:59.997') ALTER TABLE TMP_HTTP_LOG SWITCH TO HIS_HTTP_LOG PARTITION 3 4 However when I added the index in HIS_HTTP_LOG and execute the step 3,It made error: a) CREATE INDEX IDX_HIS_HTTP_LOG_001 ON HIS_HTTP_LOG(USERID)ON PS_HIS_HTTP_LOG (STARTIME) b) ALTER PARTITION SCHEME PS_HIS_HTTP_LOG NEXT USED [FG_03] ALTER PARTITION FUNCTION PF_HIS_HTTP_LOG() SPLIT RANGE ('20070331 23:59:59.997') ALTER TABLE TMP_HTTP_LOG SWITCH TO HIS_HTTP_LOG PARTITION 3 ========================= Error messages================================================"ALTER TABLE SWITCH statement failed. There is no identical index in source table 'TMP_HTTP_LOG SWITCH ' for the index 'IDX_HIS_HTTP_LOG_001' in target table 'HIS_HTTP_LOG' ." When I added index in REL_HTTP_LOG ,it gave me the same error message Could you tell me how can I solve the problem !
I have the pagefile.sys on the same partition (C:)as the database files. I been advised this is not a good idea. I'm getting paging. I'd like to move the swapfile to another partition on the same drive. Is that a good idea, or should I move it to another physical disk? And is it OK to leave the OS partition (C:) without any swapfile? Thanks!!
Hi! I'm installing a new SQL Server machine. During NT Server installation our NT support guy converted the only 2GB FAT C: partition to NTFS. So as of right now all my 4 8GB drives are NTFS. I think it would be better to keep this C: partition in FAT because, as of my knowledge, having FAT boot partition can help to boot the machine in case of NT crash.
Is there anything that I'm really losing by this conversion to NTFS or I should not be worried so much about it? Does it put my SQL Server databases, database .dat files or NT Server in more danger situation in case of any crash? Or it's giving me some advantages? Thanks Ninel
Recently i've been working on a new project that would partition a large table 2 smaller tables. I then create a view to union the 2 smaller tables(table A, B). I've been getting a strange error when i try to update, insert, delete a record through the view. "View needs partitioning column"....i find this strange. Both of my table have a cluster primary key consisting of 3 columns, and one of the 3 columns(date field) consist of a check constraint. The constraint is used to determine what record goes into which table. Am i missing anything else? The really strange part is sometime it works, and sometimes i get the error message.
