CREATE INDEX myTable99_1_IX ON MyTable99_1
(Account, Ledger)
CREATE INDEX myTable99_2_IX ON MyTable99_2
(Account, Ledger)
CREATE INDEX myTable99_3_IX ON MyTable99_3
(Account, Ledger)
GO
CREATE VIEW myView99
AS
SELECT Account
, Ledger
, PostDate
FROM myTable99_1
UNION ALL
SELECT Account
, Ledger
, PostDate
FROM myTable99_2
UNION ALL
SELECT Account
, Ledger
, PostDate
FROM myTable99_3
GO
SELECT * FROM myView99 WHERE Account = 1 AND Ledger = 1
GO
DROP VIEW myView99
DROP TABLE myTable99_1, myTable99_2, myTable99_3
GO
OK, so I thought I knew this, but I'm looking for parallelism...not only am I no getting it, I'm getting an Index scan....is it becuse I didn't put any data in the table? I thought it would stil show my index seek with parallelism
Hi! This is my first post and I really need help with Partitioned View. I'm using Sql Server 2000 and I created a partitioned view using 6 tables and now a need to create the table '7' and alter the view. But when i'm trying to insert new data i'm receiving the message: :eek: "Server: Msg 4416, Level 16, State 5, Line 1 UNION ALL view 'tb_sld_cob_pap' is not updatable because the definition contains a disallowed construct."
My code is:
drop VIEW tb_sld_cob_pap GO CREATE TABLE dbo.tb_sld_cob_pap_7 ( cod_operacao int NOT NULL , cod_contrato int NOT NULL , sequencial_duplicata int NOT NULL , data_sld_pap smalldatetime NOT NULL CHECK ([data_sld_pap] >= '20060201'), liqex_dia_nom_outros float NULL , liqex_dia_moe_outros float NULL, constraint pk_pap7 primary key (cod_operacao,cod_contrato,sequencial_duplicata,da ta_sld_pap) ) GO CREATE INDEX IdxSldCobPap7_1 ON dbo.tb_sld_cob_pap_7(cod_titulo, seq_titulo, data_sld_pap) GO
CREATE INDEX IdxSldCobPap7_2 ON dbo.tb_sld_cob_pap_7(cod_operacao, seq_ctr_sacado, sequencial_duplicata, data_sld_pap) GO
ALTER TABLE dbo.tb_sld_cob_pap_6 DROP CONSTRAINT CK__tb_sld_co__data___6C190EBB GO
ALTER TABLE dbo.tb_sld_cob_pap_6 ADD CONSTRAINT CK__tb_sld_co__data___6C190EBB CHECK (((([data_sld_pap] >= '20051201') and ([data_sld_pap] < '20060201')))) GO
create VIEW tb_sld_cob_pap as select * from tb_sld_cob_pap_1 union all select * from tb_sld_cob_pap_2 union all select * from tb_sld_cob_pap_3 union all select * from tb_sld_cob_pap_4 union all select * from tb_sld_cob_pap_5 union all select * from tb_sld_cob_pap_6 union all select * from tb_sld_cob_pap_7
My table tb_sld_cob_pap_6 does NOT have data with ([data_sld_pap] >= '20060201'). I'm using this script in other database and I don't have this problem.
This post concerns updating across a partitioned view, and not unlike others about this subject I am getting this error:
Msg 4436, Level 16, State 12, Line 1 UNION ALL view 'dbII.dbo.MyTable' is not updatable because a partitioning column was not found.
I am aware of the rules for defining a partitioning column, but interpreting them may have beaten me. So perhaps I haven't abided by all the rules. How to spot which one(s) from the view and table definitions? I suspect the CHECK constraint does not allow the ASCII function, but I can't see how to avoid using it given SYSCODE entries in one table are like "[A-Z]%" and in the other are like "[0-9]%".
Otherwise, I suspect it is because one of the tables has, by legacy, a text column and the view is casting it to varchar(MAX). I also suspect it is because there's a second column with a unique index. These aren't mentioned in the rules (are they?).
Here's the view definition:
SELECT SYSCODE, COL2, CAST(COMMENTS AS varchar(MAX)) AS COMMENTS FROM dbo.MYTABLE UNION ALL SELECT SYSCODE, COL2, COMMENTS FROM OTHERDATABASE.dbo.MYTABLE AS MYTABLE_1
And here are the table definitions:
-- Table in the database where view is defined CREATE TABLE [dbo].[MYTABLE]( [SYSCODE] [char](12) NOT NULL,
I am designing 3 p:artitioned views for 3 tables. Those tables grow up in 1.5 millions of rows per month (each one), so I decided to partition those tables monthly. The issue is that if I want to create the views with more than 256 months (256 tables) SQL Server says: 'Server: Msg 106, Level 15, State 1, Procedure Jugadas, Line 258Too many table names in the query. The maximum allowable is 256.'
Is there any workaround for this?
Another solution maybe?
PD1: I've tested with less than 256 tables and it works fine, I can update and query the tables (except for a couple of querys where I've got to join 2 or more of the involucred views in which case I got a similar error saying about a 260 table limit).
I have a table that I'm trying to scale out into a partitioned view. It's about 30 million rows. It's a workflow table and I have a taskID in the table. Originally the table was partitioned on this column but performance still wasn't what I wanted it to be, so we figured out how we could partition on a bit flag of IsOpen.
Question #1) Anyone know a best practice for creating apartitioned views on multi-columns?
What I'd like to try to do to lower the complexity of the original partitioned view is to create a view of partitioned views. Is this even possible (This is Q#2, BTW).
I have a partitioned view defined by a UNTION ALL of member tables. I can update the member tables through the view without any problem. However, when I declare a cursor on this partitioned view and try to update the view using WHERE CURRENT OF, I get an error saying 'The target object type is not updatable through a cursor'. Does anyone know if it's the case that updating a partitioned view through cursor is not supported in SQL Server 2000?
I have database with a large table (30 Billion rows) because it is so big I separated the data in quarterly tables and created a partitioned view (with hints for the date column) about 1 billions a quarter. (all in separated filegroups). The tables themselfes are partitioned by date again, so you slice out one day
However the full-backup of grows and grows and the mainpart of it is "old" but needed data.
So I was thinking to put the older data in a separate database (with separated backup) and then point to the table in my view.
While this is technical possible (leaving out the WITH SCHEMABINDING) I wonder what negative consequences it will have.
I already had to lose "with schemabing".
I have to use separate partioning functions - for each database its own - (partition schemas where already separated due to separated filegroups)
What about query optimization, does the optimizer care that there are two databases?
Hello :-)My question is: If I query a partitioned view, but don't know the valuesin the "where x in(<expression>)" clause, i.e.: select * from viewAwhere intVal in(select intVal from tbl1) . Compared to: select * fromviewA where intVal in(5,6).Of course "intVal" is partitioning column.Will this result in an optimized query that searches only the relevanttables?*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
Using SQL Server 2005. Defined partitioned view with computed column. Computed column was a constant varchar. Ran a SELECT. According to Query Execution Plan, SQL did recognize the computed column as the partitioning column and used it to optimize the query.
However MSDN says a computed column cannot be used as the partitioning column.
INSERT INTO Table1 (value1) SELECT 'a' UNION SELECT 'b' UNION SELECT 'c'
INSERT INTO Table2 (value1) SELECT 'a' UNION SELECT 'b' UNION SELECT 'c'
INSERT INTO Table3 (value1) SELECT 'a' UNION SELECT 'b' UNION SELECT 'c'
As sometimes we need to access all data from these tables, a view has been created:
CREATE VIEW AllData AS SELECT value1, '1' as table_id from Table1 UNION ALL SELECT value1, '2' as table_id from Table2 UNION ALL SELECT value1, '3' as table_id from Table3
The problem is that while running a query like
SELECT * from AllData WHERE value1 = 'a' and table_id = '3'
I see a table scan being performed on all 3 tables, not just table3 - i.e optimisation engine doesn't care for my table_id computed column and for that fact that required data is located ONLY in Table3.
Is there any way to force optimiser to consider this column andrrebuild a plan? If not - how can I rebuild a view (I can't modify tables) to achieve that? Maybe create an index for a view?
Thanks in advance. RTFM and search don't seem to clarify this for me...
I am setting up 3 Linked Servers (SERVER_A, SERVER_B and SERVER_C) in an isolated local network. They are all running SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition, all on XP SP2. On each server, I have a distributed partitioned view named WAREHOUSE_ALL that basically is the UNION of all WAREHOUSE tables.
I am having trouble in running write (INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE) queries on the distributed partitioned view. The error returned was (run from SERVER_B)
OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "SERVER_A" returned message "No transaction is active.". Msg 7391, Level 16, State 2, Line 7The operation could not be performed because OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "SERVER_A" was unable to begin a distributed transaction.
However, executing a read (SELECT) query ran smoothly without error.
I have done all the steps required as described in the article at http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=873160 . Note that the only difference between the situation and our situation is the provider (SQLOLEDB and SQLNCLI), which I guess does not important. Unfortunately, the error still comes out.
After reading heaps of other article, I suspected that there is something wrong with MSDTC. As far as I know, all the settings for MSDTC were set accordingly. Then, I ran DTCPing - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=5e325025-4dcd-4658-a549-1d549ac17644&DisplayLang=en and the error returned was DTCping log file: C:Documents and SettingsAdministratorDesktoplSERVER_B2496RPC server is ready Please Start Partner DTCping before pinging ++++++++++++Validating Remote Computer Name++++++++++++ Please refer to following log file for details: C:Documents and SettingsAdministratorDesktoplSERVER_B2496.log Invoking RPC method on SERVER_C Problem:fail to invoke remote RPC method Error(0x5) at dtcping.cpp @303 -->RPC pinging exception -->5(Access is denied.) RPC test failed
And here is the log file:
Platform:Windows XP IP Configure Information Host Name . . . . . . . . . : SERVER_B DNS Servers . . . . . . . . : 129.78.99.2 Node Type . . . . . . . . . : NetBIOS Scope ID. . . . . . : IP Routing Enabled. . . . . : no WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . : no NetBIOS Resolution Uses DNS : no
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DTCping 1.9 Report for SERVER_B ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ RPC server is ready ++++++++++++Validating Remote Computer Name++++++++++++ 10-05, 17:10:54.769-->Start DTC connection test Name Resolution: SERVER_C-->172.19.102.36-->SERVER_C 10-05, 17:11:09.781-->Start RPC test (SERVER_B-->SERVER_C) Problem:fail to invoke remote RPC method Error(0x5) at dtcping.cpp @303 -->RPC pinging exception -->5(Access is denied.) RPC test failed
I guess it could be due to port problem, which I have already opened in the Windows Firewall. There is one article which is confusing me -> Update to automatically open port 135 in Windows Firewall when a TCP or a UDP RPC server registers with the endpoint mapper at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/838191 (This article shows automatic opening of port 135!)
I am getting the following error when I attempt to complete my data flow task. The destination is a partitioned view but I get the following error message when I run the package :
Partitioned view 'PRICE_DIM' is not updatable as the target of a bulk operation
I have a problem while I try to insert data into a partioned view I am getting the following error.
Server: Msg 4436, Level 16, State 12, Line 9 UNION ALL view 'sales_all' is not updatable because a partitioning column was not found.
Any thoughts
USE pubs
CREATE TABLE sales_monthly ( sales_month int NOT NULL , sales_qty int NOT NULL ) GO CREATE TABLE sales_jan ( sales_month int NOT NULL, sales_qty int NOT NULL ) GO CREATE TABLE sales_feb ( sales_month int NOT NULL, sales_qty int NOT NULL ) GO
ALTER TABLE sales_feb WITH NOCHECK ADD CONSTRAINT PK_sales_feb PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( sales_month ) , CONSTRAINT CK_sales_feb CHECK (sales_month = 2) GO
ALTER TABLE sales_jan WITH NOCHECK ADD CONSTRAINT PK_sales_jan PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( sales_month ) , CONSTRAINT CK_sales_jan CHECK (sales_month = 1) GO
We have a partitioned view with 4 underlying tables. The view and eachof the underlying tables are in seperate databases on the same server.Inserts and deletes on the view work fine. We then add insert anddelete triggers to each of the underlying tables. The triggers modifya different set of tables in the same database as the view (differentthan the underlying table). The problem is those triggers aren't firedwhen inserting or deleteing via the view. Inserting or deleteing theunderlying table directly causes the the triggers to fire, but not whenthe tables are accessed as a result of using the view.Am I missing something? The triggers are 'for insert' and 'fordelete'. No 'instead of' or 'after' triggers.
We have a situation where queries against a partitioned view ignore a suitable index and perform a table scan (against 200+MB of data), where the same query on the underlying table(s) results in a 4 page index seek. I can€™t find any mention of the situation, so I€™m trying a post here.
We€™re running SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition sp2 on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition sp1 on a two node cluster, and it also occurs on a stand-alone development box with Developer edition. We have four tables, named Options#0, Options#1, Options#2, and Options#3. All are almost identical (script generated by SSMS and edited down a bit):
SET ANSI_NULLS OFF SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Options#0]( [ControlID] [tinyint] NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_Options#0__ControlID] DEFAULT ((0)), [ModelCode] [char](8) NOT NULL, [EquipmentID] [int] NOT NULL, [AdjustmentContextID] [int] NOT NULL, [EquipmentCode] [char](2) NOT NULL, [EquipmentTypeCode] [char](1) NOT NULL, [Description] [varchar](50) NOT NULL, [DisplayOrder] [smallint] NOT NULL, [IsStandard] [bit] NOT NULL, [Priority] [tinyint] NOT NULL, [Status] [bit] NOT NULL, [Adjustment] [int] NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_Options#0] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [ModelCode] ASC, [EquipmentID] ASC, [AdjustmentContextID] ASC, [ControlID] ASC )WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY] ) ON [PRIMARY]
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Options#0] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [CK_Options#0__ControlID] CHECK (([ControlID]=(0)))
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Options#0] CHECK CONSTRAINT [CK_Options#0__ControlID]
The only differences between the tables are in the names and in the value defaulted to and CHECKed, which matches the table name (to support the partitioned view, of course).
We receive and load data ever week and every two month, and use an unlikely algorithm to load and manage its availability by running an ATLER on the view (to maintain the access rights defined for the hosting environment). Scripted out via SSMS, the view looks like:
SET ANSI_NULLS ON SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON CREATE VIEW [dbo].[Options] AS select * from Options#1 union all select * from Options#3
The problem is that when we issue a query like
SELECT count(*) from Options where ControlID = 1 and ModelCode = '2004NIC9'
The resulting query (as checked via the query plan and SET STATISTICS IO on) will get €œpartitioned€?, running against the proper table, but it will ignore the query, perform a table scan, and churn through 200+MB of data. A Similar query run against the underlying table
SELECT count(*) from Options#1 where ControlID = 1 and ModelCode = '2004NIC9'
(with or without the ControlID = 1 clause) will perform a Clustered Index Seek and read maybe 4 pages.
Analyzing the execution plan shows that the table query work like you€™d think, but for the query against the view we get a Clustered Index Scan, with predicate:
[DBName].[dbo].[Options#1].[ControlID]=(1) AND CONVERT_IMPLICIT(char(8),[ DBName].[dbo].[Options#1].[ModelCode],0)=€™2004NIC9€™
I get the same results when explicitly listing all columns in the view. The code page on the view and tables is the same (as determined by checking properties via SSMS).
Why is the table data column being implicitly converted to the data type that it already is? Why does this occur when working with the partitioned view but not with the actual table? Can this behavior be controlled or modified without losing the (incredibly useful) data loading management benefits of the partitioned view? I€™m guessing (and hoping) it€™s some subtle quirk or mis-setting, please set me on the right path!
I have a partitioned view containing 4 tables (example follows at end)
The query plan generated on a select correctly accesses just one of the tables
The query plan generated on an update always accesses all four of the tables. I thought that it should only access the partition required to satisfy the update. Can anyone please advise whether: a) Is this is expected behaviour? b) Is the partitioned view incorrectly configured in some way? c) Is there is a known bug in this area
Note that the behaviour is the same with SP1 on SQL2000
I would be very grateful for any advice
Thanks
Stefan Bennett
Example follows
--Create the tables and insert the values CREATE TABLE Sales_West ( Ordernum INT, total money, region char(5) check (region = 'West'), primary key (Ordernum, region) ) CREATE TABLE Sales_North ( Ordernum INT, total money, region char(5) check (region = 'North'), primary key (Ordernum,region) ) CREATE TABLE Sales_East ( Ordernum INT, total money, region char(5) check (region = 'East'), primary key (Ordernum,region) ) CREATE TABLE Sales_South ( Ordernum INT, total money, region char(5) check (region = 'South'), primary key (Ordernum,region) ) GO
--create the view that combines all sales tables CREATE VIEW Sales_National AS SELECT * FROM Sales_West UNION ALL SELECT * FROM Sales_North UNION ALL SELECT * FROM Sales_East UNION ALL SELECT * FROM Sales_South GO
--Look at execution plan for this query -- This correctly only accesses the South partition SELECT * FROM sales_national WHERE region = 'south'
-- Look at execution plan for update -- This accesses all partitions - Why? update sales_national set total = 100 where ordernum = 23456;
I am using SQL Server 2000, SP3.I created an updatable partitioned view awhile ago and it has beenrunning smoothly for some time. The partition is on a DATETIME columnand it is partitioned by month. Each month a stored procedure isscheduled that creates the new month's table, and alters the view toinclude it. Again... working like a charm for quite some time.This past weekend I moved some of the first tables onto a new filegroup. I did this through Enterprise Manager, by going into designmode for the table, then going into the properties for the table andchanging the file group there as well as in all of the indexes. Nowthe partitioned view is no longer updatable. It gives the errormessage: "UNION ALL view '<view name>' is not updatable because apartitioning column was not found."I have extracted the DDL for all of the partition tables and comparedthem and they all look the same. I checked and then double-checked theCHECK constraints to make sure that they were all valid and they are.If I remove the tables that I moved to the new file group from theview, then it is once again updatable, but when I put them back in itfails again.Any ideas? If you would like samples of the code then I can send italong, but it's rather large, so I have not included it here.Thanks!Thomas R. Hummel
I am trying to use an indexed view to allow for aggregations to be generated more quickly in my test data warehouse. The Fact Table I am creating the indexed view on is a partitioned clustered columnstore index.
I have created a view with the following code:
ALTER view dbo.FactView with schemabinding as select local_date_key, meter_key, unit_key, read_type_key, sum(isnull(read_value,0)) as [s_read_value], sum(isnull(cost,0)) as [s_cost] , sum(isnull(easy_target_value,0)) as [s_easy_target_value], sum(isnull(hard_target_value,0)) as [s_hard_target_value] , sum(isnull(read_value,0)) as [a_read_value], sum(isnull(temperature,0)) as [a_temp], sum(isnull(co2,0)) as [s_co2] , sum(isnull(easy_target_co2,0)) as [s_easy_target_co2] , sum(isnull(hard_target_co2,0)) as [s_hard_target_co2], sum(isnull(temp1,0)) as [a_temp1], sum(isnull(temp2,0)) as [a_temp2] , sum(isnull(volume,0)) as [s_volume], count_big(*) as [freq] from dbo.FactConsumptionPart group by local_date_key, read_type_key, meter_key, unit_key
I then created an index on the view as follows:
create unique clustered index IDX_FV on factview (local_date_key, read_type_key, meter_key, unit_key)
I then followed this up by running some large calculations that required use of the aggregation functionality on the main fact table, grouping by the clustered index columns and only returning averages and sums that are available in the view, but it still uses the underlying table to perform the aggregations, rather than the view I have created. Running an equivalent query on the view, then it takes 75% less time to query the indexed view directly, to using the fact table. I think the expected behaviour was that in SQL Server Enterprise or Developer edition (I am using developer edition), then the fact table should have used the indexed view. what I might be missing, for the query not to be using the indexed view?
I created an updateable partioned view of a very large table. Now I get an error when I attempt to declare a CURSOR that SELECTs from the view, and a FOR UPDATE argument is in the declaration.
There error generated is:
Server: Msg 16957, Level 16, State 4, Line 3
FOR UPDATE cannot be specified on a READ ONLY cursor
Here is the cursor declaration:
declare some_cursor CURSOR
for
select *
from part_view
FOR UPDATE
Any ideas, guys? Thanks in advance for knocking your head against this one.
PS: Since I tested the updateability of the view there are no issues with primary keys, uniqueness, or indexes missing. Also, unfortunately, the dreaded cursor is requried, so set based alternatives are not an option - it's from within Peoplesoft.
I want to find a way to get partition info for all the tables in all the databases for a server. Showing database name, table name, schema name, partition by (maybe; year, month, day, number, alpha), column used in partition, current active partition, last partition (for date partitions I want to know if the partition goes untill 2007, so I can add 2008)
all I've come up with so far is:
Code Block
SELECT distinct o.name From sys.partitions p inner join sys.objects o on (o.object_id = p.object_id) where o.type_desc = 'USER_TABLE' and p.partition_number > 1
I've starting to explore the Distributed Partitoned Views, in order to use it in the next project, and I've found the article: "MS SQL Server Distributed Partitioned Views" By Don Schlichting
I came across the following problem: While running sample: USE test GO
CREATE VIEW AllAuthors AS
SELECT * FROM AuthorsAM, TEST1.test.dbo.AuthorsNZ
GO
I got the error message: Server: Msg 4506, Level 16, State 1, Procedure AllAuthors, Line 5 Column names in each view or function must be unique. Column name 'au_lname' in view or function 'AllAuthors' is specified more than once.
Could anyone please explain? Can't i use the same column names in both tables?
I would like to break up a very large table into about ten smaller ones. With partitioning to be efficient the columns in the check constraint need to be used when accessing the view. The problem is the table has a composite primary key made up of LocationID/ProductID. With another composite index on ProductID/LocationID. This is accessed both ways from our applications.
I would like to partition the table by LocationID. But then when called by ProductID a scan of all tables in the view would have to be done.
In Oracle there is something called a global index that would solve this. Is there anything similar in SQL Server or does anybody have a work around?
I am implementing a table partitioning on our database with TSQL. At the moment (it is under developing) the data are correctly located in the relavant file group. Our target is to meke that the oldest partions/File groups can be backup and removed from the database. This to reduce the size of DB (time period is used for partitioning). Then, if the need arises, restoring the filegroup to make reporting or analysis. Take care that data are conitnuosly added and thus new File groups are added to represent the new time period (eg: new file group is the new month). Based on your experience is it possible a solution like that?
When do partitioned tables/indexes become beneficial? When a table has several million rows? Hundreds of millions of rows?
My tables all have clustered indexes based on the bigint identity PK. I am considering partitioning some of the larger tables by year. If the field I use is not part of the current clustered index then I can't use create index to create my partitions? I need to create an empty table for each year and then use the Alter Table switch? I have header/detail/sub-detail tables. As long as I create the partition function using a similar date field the partitions will be able to be joined? How do I insure my indexes will be aligned? Once I set up the partitions I assume new rows will be stored in the proper partitions based on the value of the date field.
I've read BOL, etc & they are good sources for theory but I need a "Building Partitions for Dummies" type paper with step by step explanations. Anything out there like that?
I'm running sqlserver 2000 enterprise edition on windows 2000 and I need to know, how to create partition table. Please give me a small partition table example.
hello i want to ask if the insertion of a record into a partion is slower than insertion it into a non partitioned table or not? cuz sql has to decide to wich partion the record has to insert according to the partitioning key and is this decesion process is making insertion slower ?
Hello,I have a large set of data that I have set up as a partitioned view.The view is partitioned by a datetime column and the individual tableseach represent one month's worth of data. I need to keep at least twoyear's worth of data at all times, but after two years I can archivethe data. A sample of the code used is below. It is simplified forspace reasons.My question is, how do other people maintain the database in this typeof scenario? I could create all of the tables necessary for the nextyear and then go through that at the end of each year (archive tablesover two years, add new tables, and change the view), but I was alsothinking that I might be able to write a stored procedure that runsonce a month and does all three of those tasks automatically. It seemslike a lot of dynamic SQL code though for something like that.Alternatively, I could write VB code to handle it in a DTS package.So, my question again is, how are others doing it? Any suggestions?Thanks!-Tom.CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Station_Events_200401] ([event_time] [datetime] NOT NULL ,[another_column] [char] (8) NOT NULL )GOCREATE TABLE [dbo].[Station_Events_200402] ([event_time] [datetime] NOT NULL ,[another_column] [char] (8) NOT NULL )GOCREATE VIEW Station_EventsASSELECT event_time,another_columnFROM Station_Events_200401UNION ALLSELECT event_time,another_columnFROM Station_Events_200402GO
I have inserted 200m rows into a partitioned table using SSIS, the table has a [RecID] column which is an identity(1,1) primary key. When I open the table, I see that RecId doesn't start from 1(its not ordered), it starts from 889823. But, when I query the table for RecID = 1, I can see that row.
Is it a typical behavior of a partitioned table? Or am I doing something wrong?
This is the query I used to create the partitioned table.
Hi everyone, I have some doubts about distributed partitioned views. When we create a distributed partitioned view whcih include three server, do we have tocreate this same distributed partitioned view in that three server in order to make each server to see adn especially modify it ?
Hello all, I was wondering if anyone else ran into this and if how you got around it. In a nut shell the SQL optimizer it NOT pruning the additional partitions from the execution plan as would be expected when applying a constraint directly against the partitioned table€™s partition key, Instead its scanning every partition that you have set up in you partition function range.. Yet when you apply the actual value against the table the plan return as expected.
Hmm.... strange......ghost...ooooooo?
I have created a simple test to reproduce:
Code Snippet
CREATE PARTITION FUNCTION [PTFunction](int) AS RANGE LEFT FOR VALUES (1,2,3)
GO
CREATE PARTITION SCHEME [PTDataScheme] AS PARTITION [PTFunction] TO ([PRIMARY], [PRIMARY], [PRIMARY], [PRIMARY])
GO
CREATE TABLE tblPartitionTest(
ID int identity(1,1) ,
PartitionKey int,
Sales money)
ON PTDataScheme(PartitionKey)
GO
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(1,10.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(1,20.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(1,30.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(1,40.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(1,50.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(2,10.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(2,20.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(2,30.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(2,40.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(2,50.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(3,10.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(3,20.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(3,30.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(3,40.00);
INSERT INTO tblPartitionTest(PartitionKey,Sales) VALUES(3,50.00);
Hi, I am using sql2000 ent edition. I have a partitioned view based on 8 tables. My selects and inserts are fine. But, when I run a delete on the view based on a query on the paritioned column, I get a "Transaction (Process ID 149) was deadlocked and has been chosen as a victim". I looked at the query plan and it was showing a parallel query on all the underlying tables. So, I put the Option(maxdop 1), using only one processor and the delete worked fine.
Does anybody know why? is parallel query create deadlocks? is there any known problems with deletes on partitioned views? same question for updates. I think I have the same problem for updates.
