I have a question about Partitions and if this is the best approach for my situation.
I have a table with many rows (300 Million or more) where there is a column that represents a date (actually it is an integer in the form of YYYYMM - example 200501 - January of 2005)
The data prior to a specific date (in my case 3 full years before the current YYYYMM - at this time 200501) is data that never changes. The data at that date (200501) and on is data that changes every month.
I have approximately 200 Million rows that are static (and growing every year) and 100 million that changes every month.
I wanted to do the following (and keep in mind i have to do a delete from this table every month and an insert every month)
1. Create a simple partition function like this to represent 2 buckets for data (one prior to 200501 and one post 200501)
CREATE PARTITION FUNCTION partPeriodData (INT)
AS RANGE RIGHT FOR VALUES (200501)
2. Create a partition scheme as follows (to separate the data from the two buckets onto two separate file groups)
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY]
) ON partPeriodScheme(Period)
When i create my table i get the following message
The filegroup 'PRIMARY' specified for the clustered index 'PK_f_eurostatdata' was used for table 'dbo.f_eurostatdata' even though partition scheme 'partPeriodScheme' is specified for it.
Hello I have a table containing 100,000 record for each year, and every year a new 100,000 record are inserted,I need to know how to make partion this table by year I need to know the syntax Thank you
I have begun my quest to become familiar with SQL 2000 table partitioning and have had some success. I've partitioned tables according to the "rules" and guidlines of other papers and the show plans look good for all cases.
But when I went to create another demo series, I got stuck. I've created two tables, with the appropriate CHECK constraints, and with a "union all" view. When inserting data, it goes to the right tables. When reading data with a where clause like: col1=10, the show plan shows the query getting the data from the ONE correct table. BUT When the where clause looks like: where col1 between 1 and 10: the showplan shows the query getting data from both tables, instead of the table that 1 to 10 belongs to. Help!
1) I'm about to implement SQL Table/Index Partitioning for the first time. It seems really good, no downside. Is there an "Gotcha's" I gotta be weary of?
2) My tests show a clear performance gain. Is there a performance loss in other areas? In "Designing Partitions to Improve Query Performance" it says this: "In this way, the SQL Server query optimizer can process the join faster, because the partitions themselves can be joined. If a query joins two tables that are not collocated or are not partitioned on the join field, the presence of partitions may actually slow down query processing instead of accelerate it." What does that mean? If I have: Select A.Col1, B.Col3 from A join B on A.Col5=B.Col6 Does that mean I have to partition A.Col5 & B.Col6 the same way else my queries will get slower?
3) Does it take up more space? Do restores take longer?
4) How much maintenance is involved? Is there a way of automating the creation of new partitions? Or do you just create loads that you'll need in the future e.g. always have a few months' partition created ahead of time? The "Designing Partitions to Manage Subsets of Data" article in BOL seems to indicate some manual work every month (if you have a monthly partitioning strategy).
5) Why not partition every table that has over say a million rows?
6) If I create a Yearly Partition on a table that has been around for a long time, will it automatically partition all the indexes on that table? Or do you have to re-create the indexes for that to happen?
7) Neither table can have a full-text index in a partition move. Does that mean you can't ever partition tables with full-text indexes?
8) Partitioning doesn't seem to fit well with replication. Do you have to end up choosing between the two?
i have a table named "user" in which user which are located at different places within a city are recorded. i want to group user with respect to there location like users of northern region are recorded first then users of western region and so on. tell me from horizontal and vertical partitioning wh technique is better or i should use some other technique. thanks for ur consideration.
Hello all. My company's in the process of configuring our new Dell server boxes. We're contemplating whether to partition the drive (where DB will reside) into 1 large partition or several smaller partitions. What are the pros and cons of each option? Any suggestion will be greatly appreciated.
Hi, I want to know more on table partitioning.I do not know where to get the right info.from. I have a doubt - if a table is partitioned horizontally how does a query identifies where to pick up the data from i.e. from which part of partitioned table?
I'm faced with a project that requires the caching of vacations. Each vacation has a departure date & a price. The amount of different vacations that will need to be cached is probably near 1 million per day.
I will then need to select the price(s) of vacations for either a single day or a date range (based on the vacation criteria).
I was considering creating a new partition (table with a date on it) every day. This would allow me to jump into the needed table(s) based on the vacation search criteria. This would also allow me to drop tables with past dates.
I was considering running this all on 1 sql server. I was hoping I could create multiple threads for a datespan search and hit all the tables in the daterange at the same time.
Can you guys enlighten the noob on where I really need some help on this?
I am trying to implement partitioning on a table depending upon the fiscal_month value...
The current values are from 1-6...
Create partition function LoadDataPartitionFunction ( smallint) as Range for values (1,2,3,4,5,6)
-- drop partition scheme LoadDataPartitionScheme create partition scheme LoadDataPartitionScheme as Partition LoadDataPartitionFunction ALL to ([PRIMARY])
CREATE TABLE Load_Data_Partition ( [RowID] [int] NOT NULL, [Fiscal_Month] [smallint] NOT NULL, [Fiscal_Year] [smallint] NOT NULL, ....
[Service] [nvarchar](100) COLLATE ) ON LoadDataPartitionScheme (Fiscal_Month)
truncate table Load_Data_old --- same schema as load_data_partition Alter table load_data_partition switch partition 1 to Load_Data_old
-- which month's data to be moved out alter partition function LoadDataPartitionFunction () merge range (1)
Alter partition scheme LoadDataPartitionScheme next used [primary]
-- which months data to be moved in alter partition function LoadDataPartitionFunction () split range(7)
Alter table [Load_Data_new] switch to [Load_Data_partition] partition 6
ALTER TABLE SWITCH statement failed. Check constraints of source table Load_Data_new' allow values that are not allowed by range defined by partition 6 on target table 'Load_Data_partition'.
Values in Load_Data_new for fiscal_month is 7
But when i try
Insert into [Load_Data_partition] Select * from [Load_Data_new] where fiscal_month = 7
it works fine...
reference used : http://www.sqlskills.com/resources/Whitepapers/Partitioning%20in%20SQL%20Server%202005%20Beta%20I I.htm
hi all, before i had a big database more than 90GB and it's growing very sharp so what i did is to create a summary database that gonna hold some aggregation and i create also three tables that gonna hold the data, on will hold the data for the last three months (very detailed information) one between 3 months and a year(less detailed) and the last one older than a year(less less detailed) these are the company requirement i'm working with. then i transfer the data to the new tables with stored procedures. now my question is: do i need to create a view for these three tables? and if yes how should i do it?!! cus i do not have the same columns in the three tables. thanks experts.
i want to partition a table containing about 3 million rows. The partition column will be of datetime type.
following is the partition function i have used create partition function MyPartFun (datetime) as range left for values ('07/30/2007','09/30/2007','11/30/2007','01/30/2008','04/30/2008')
following is the partition scheme i have used create partition scheme PartScheme as partition MyPartFun all to ([primary])
i know how to add partition column while creating the table But dont know how to add above partition scheme to an already populated table Plz help...
Snehalata writes "does view for vertical partitioning improves the performance, since the view will have all the columns which exist in the original table(without partitioning?"
Hi, I have a database created using Enterprise Manager Wizard. For example datafile db1_data.mdf and log file db1_log file exists. All the tables are created in datafile db1_data.mdf. Now to improve performance I want to implement table partitioning. Can anybody tell me howto implement it with existing strutcure. Suppose there is table Mytable in which all update and delete actions are performed regularly.And it contains about 10,0000 records. I want to partition the table so that it contains 5000 records.
I want to partion a table based on the client specific id and I want these values (client id's) to be passed dynamically to the create partition function. I am not familiar with partitioning so it will be great if someone guides me (I am also reading some articles on partitioning, but it will be easier with some help)
The table I am trying to partition has like 80 million rows with four client's data as of now and will be more once we implement new clients.
I also think Partition will help, because before we load a client's data, we remove the data that is already out there (we flush previous qtr data before we insert this qtr data)
Hi Experts, I am new to Table Partitioning, Can any body guide me how to do table partitioning? any way here is my scenario, we are having one database called "DATA" in SQL 2000 server and we have migrated to SQL 2005 by using backup and restore. and "DATA" is having about 15 tables and they are very very very big in size. and they dont have any index on a coulum name "DATETIME", but i want make table partition according to that perticular field "DATETIME" and right present we are having 6 months of data. So, how to proceed further? Your help will be appreciable..
i am trying to partition an sql table in sql server 2005, i created the partition schema and the data files that i want the data to be filled in after the partition. After the partition is finished sql gave me partition is successful , but i noticed that the size of data files i created has not increased and their sizes are the same.
notice: i have a clustered index on this table, so i dropped this index and recreated it
Code SnippetCREATE TABLE [dbo].[ItemTokensLink]( [ItemID] [int] NOT NULL, [TokenID] [int] NOT NULL, [WordCount] [int] NOT NULL DEFAULT ((1)), CONSTRAINT [PK_ItemTokensLink_1] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [ItemID] ASC, [TokenID] ASC )WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY] ) ON [PRIMARY]
So this table has now reached over 22 million rows. The problem is my machine only has 1GB ram....so SQl Server tries to load up the whole table and this is ~560MB....equals zero ram for ...well anything else!
Does SQL Server load up an entire table when performing an INSERT?
Code Snippet
INSERT INTO ItemTokensLink(ItemID, TokenID, WordCount) SELECT DISTINCT @ItemID as ItemID, t.TokenID, Count(t.TokenID) as WordCount FROM #Tokens t Group by TokenID
@ItemID is parameter provided #Tokens is a temp table create with a word list
Would partitioning help here?
The table is is 80% of the time added to and the ItemID will always increase. What is the best to deal with massive tables that are inserted to frequently?
How does SQL Server decide when to load a table into memory? TIA
I have current events going to a log, and I'm implementing partitioning it into weeks using the following function...
CREATE PARTITION FUNCTION [trackPointLogWeekPF](int) AS RANGE LEFT FOR VALUES (7, 14, 21, 28)
and in the table create I add an extra field of day number to pass to the function... [intPartitionDayNum] AS (datepart(day,[dtTrackPointTime]))
So if that's all for the current month, is it possible to have monthly partitions for the older data so that I could drop off a month from a year ago for example or would I need to keep it weekly?
We have purchased a new Server at my company. We previously had two servers. One was the NT file server and then we had another SQL Server. Well, we've bought one box to replace both old boxes. I have 3 18.2 GB SCSI drives running on a RAID-5 configuration. I've partitioned the C: drive as 2GB and it will only be used for NT files and NT Utility apps.
On the old system I had all my data files on one physical drive and all of my logs on a seperate physical drive. Now, with RAID, the three drives act like one big 36GB drive. Finally, my question...
How should I partition this drive? Should I put the SQL Server App, my data files and my logs all on one partition? Should they each have their own partition? Should it be a mix (App & Log, Data & Log, etc.). Also, how much space do I need just for the application if I put it in its own partition?
I've never installed SQL Server before, so if anyone has any other suggestions, tips, tricks, etc., I'd love to hear it. Either post here or e-mail me responses.
Hi, Just got a new box and want to fully optimize the server. I was contemplating where to put the transaction log? I have 2 drives: Drive C: 30 Gig(Operating System) Drive E: 180 Gig(Database file)
I'm planning to build the database in Drive E:, but am leaning to put the transaction log in drive C:. Do you think it's a good move? I want to separate the log and data files, but Drive C: is host the operating system. Do you think it would be wise to partition drive C: and put the operating system on one partition and the Transaction log on the other? Does it enhance performance in anyway?
Is there a way within analysis services to perform a partition on an automated basis? Not sure if this is necessarily the best forum for my question. Apologies if it falls outside the scope of SQL server.
I have a Sql Server 2005 database with many tables, each with millions of records within them.
They all have a Receive Date field, with records going back 10 years or so.
What would be the best way to partition it? I was thinking of partitioning them by years, but that would give me 10+ partitions -- would that be alot of overhead?
Hi folks! I'm looking for advice on partitioning a large table. In the DDL below I've changed names to protect the guilty.
My table has this schema:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[BigTable] ( [TimeKey] [int] NOT NULL, [SegmentID] [int] NOT NULL, [MyVal] [tinyint] NOT NULL ) ON [BigTablePS1] (TimeKey) -- see below for partition scheme
-- will evaluate whether this one is needed, my thinking is yes -- based on the expected select queries. create index NCI_SegmentID on BigTable(SegmentID asc)
The TimeKey column is sort of like a unix time. It's the number of minutes since 2001/01/01, but always floored to a 5 minute boundary. so only multiples of 5 are allowed.
Now, this table will be rather big. There are about 20k possible SegmentIDs. For every TimeKey from 2008/01/01 to 2009/01/01 (12 months), I'll have on the order of 20000 rows, one for each SegmentID.
For the 12 month period, there are 365*24*60/5=105120 possible TimeKey values. So the total rowcount is over 2 billion. (20k * 105120)
Select queries are expected to be something like this:
-- fetch just one particular row... select MyVal from BigTable where TimeKey=5555 and SegmentID=234234
--fetch for a certain set of SegmentID and a particular time... select b.SegmentID ,b.MyVal from BigTable b join OtherTable t on t.SegmentID=b.SegmentID where b.TimeKey=5555 and t.SomeColumn='SomeValue'
Besides selects, also I need to be able to efficiently issue update statements against the table with new values in the MyVal column based on a range of TimeKey values (a contiguous span of a few days) and sets of about 1000 SegmentID. updates would always look like this:
update t set t.MyVal=p.MyVal from BigTable t join #myTempTable p on t.TimeKey=p.TimeKey and t.SegmentId=p.SegmentId
where #myTempTable would have order of 1000*24*60 rows in it, all with contiguous TimeKey values, and about 1000 different SegmentID values. #myTempTable also has a clustered pk on (timekey asc, SegmentId asc).
After the table is loaded, it would never get any inserts or deletes. only selects and updates.
Given the size, and the nature of the select and update queries, this table seems like a good candidate for partitioning. I'm thinking it makes sense to partition on TimeKey.
So my question is, is it stupid to create a separate partition for each day in the year long span of TimeKeys this table covers? That would mean 365 partitions in the partition function and partition scheme. Something like this:
CREATE PARTITION FUNCTION [BigTableRangePF1] (int) AS RANGE LEFT FOR VALUES ( 3680640 + 0*1440, -- 3680640 is the number of minutes between 2001/01/01 and 2008/01/01 3680640 + 1*1440, 3680640 + 2*1440, 3680640 + 3*1440, ...snip... 3680640 + 363*1440, 3680640 + 364*1440, 3680640 + 365*1440 ); GO
CREATE PARTITION SCHEME [BigTablePS1] AS PARTITION [BigTableRangePF1] TO ( [PRIMARY],[PRIMARY],[PRIMARY], ...snip... [PRIMARY],[PRIMARY],[PRIMARY] ); GO
does anyone have any experience with partitioned tables with so many partitions? Is a few hundred partitions too many? From my understanding of partitions, seems like having so many will be ok. Is it somehow worse than having hundreds of tables in a database?
Even with one partition for each day, I'll still have 24*60*20000/5 ~ 5m rows in each one.
I am trying to use table partition feature from Sql Server 2005 enterprise edition.
I have Names table with columns FNAME, LNAME and DISPLAYNAME (concatenation of FNAME and LNAME) which I partitioned across 2 drives and 4 file groups based on the below criteria.
CREATE PARTITION FUNCTION pfNameRange(varchar(200)) AS RANGE RIGHT FOR VALUES ('F', 'I', 'S');
Currently there are 5 mill rows in this partitioned tables - partitioned table has clustered index on ID (identity property) and LNAME.
I also created another table with the same data without partition on the table.
When I run the following query I get the same response time of 10secs from both tables.
Names - partitoned table with clustered index on ID and Lname NameSEARCH - with no partition and no index
select * from names where lname = 'smith' select * from namesearch where lname = 'smith'
Is it safe to assume that if the data files are on San it doesnt give any advantage of table paritioning?
How can paritioning be made effective with data files on San
Once I've added Files for a database across mulitple SAN drives willSQL 2005 automatically partition data across the Files automatically?Will it atleast grow across files automatically? Or do I have to doScheme Functions, Partitions, and assign the Scheme Partition to eachtable in the database?ThanksErik
Hi,I don't know if I missed anything. I have 2 member tables and onepartition view in SQL 2000 defined as followingCREATE VIEW Server1.dbo.UTableASSELECT*FROMServer1..pTable1UNION ALLSELECT*FROMServer2..pTable2CREATE TABLE pTable1 ([ID1] [int] IDENTITY (1000, 2) NOT NULL ,[ID2] [int] NOT NULL ,...<other columns>.........CONSTRAINT [PK_tblLot] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED([ID1],[ID2]) ON [PRIMARY] ,CHECK ([ID2] = 1015)) ON [PRIMARY]CREATE TABLE [pTable2] ([ID1] [int] IDENTITY (1001, 2) NOT NULL ,[ID2] [int] NOT NULL ,...<other columns>.........CONSTRAINT [PK_tblLot] PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED([ID1],[ID2]) WITH FILLFACTOR = 90 ON [PRIMARY] ,CHECK ([ID2] <1015)) ON [PRIMARY]SELECT is working fine. However, I got error message if I issue anupdate command such asUPDATE UTableSET somecol = somevalWhere somecol2 = somecondServer: Msg 4436, Level 16, State 12, Line 1UNION ALL view 'UTable' is not updatable because a partitioning columnwas not found.Anyone have any idea? ID2 is my partition column, why the SQL 2Kdoesn't see it. It is a part of primary key, having checkingconstrain, and no other constrain on it. Am I missing something?Thanks a lot.
Hi!I have a question:I already have a DB that uses partitions to divide data in USCounties, partitioned by state.Can I use TWO levels of partitioning?I mean... 3077 filegroups and 50 partition functions that addressthem, but can I use another function to group the 50 states?Thanks!Piero
I recently came across a database where the data are horizonally partitionedinto 4 tables. I'm not sure if this was a poor design choice, or if it wasdone for valid performance reasons. The schema of the tables are essentiallythe same, it's just that they are named differenly and the columns are nameddifferenlty to differentiate the data from a business usage perspective. Thetables could easily be combined inot one by adding a new colum to theclustered index that would be used to differentiate the business usage. I amtrying to evaluate whether combining the tables would improve performance orif it would be better to leave them the way they are. Many queries that runagainst these tables do not request records from more than one of thetables, which is good. However, there are a number of processes that queryagainst all of the tables on the identical clustered index range. I am notsure exactly how many rows are in the tables but I'm fairly certain theentire database is < 50 GB.
