Hi guys , assuming right now I already create partition function (PF_Date) and partition scheme (PS_Date). Let say I would like to implement the partition on the existing tables ( eg: transaction table which is in PRIMARY filegroup), how am I switch it from PRIMARY to PS_Date ? Is it I have to re-create the particular table then only able to put in the partition scheme? Hope can get any assistance here. Thanks alot.
Player, Position, [From], [To], Fee, Type, ID, League, Window
I want to create a new table, EnglandFinal with all the data from the three tables although I'm guessing it would not be a good idea to copy the primary keys (ID column) as they would clash.
I have played around with CREATE and INSERT into and UNION but I get various errors. I'm sure I've done this before!
I have a real table with an identity column and a trigger to populate this column.
I need to import / massage data for data loads from a different format, so I have a temp table defined that contains only the columns that are represented in the data file so I can bulk insert.
I then alter this table to add all the other columns so that it reflects all the columns in the real table. I then populate all the values so that this contains the data I need.
I then want to insert into the real table pushing the data from the temp table, however this gives me errors stating that the query returned multiple rows.
I specified all the columns in the insert grouping as well as on the select from the temp table.
ANY thoughts / comments are appreciated. This is beginning to drive me nuts.
I normalized the below tables but I am finding it difficult to copy data to the new tables. Â How do I copy data from existing table to the normalized tables? see the table structure below and other supporting information:
SKU_DATA(SKU,SKU_Description,Department,Buyer) Note: this table already has data in it. CREATE TABLE SKU_DATA ( SKU     Integer NOT NULL,
[code].....
The table structure above have two three determinants( SKU,SKU_Description and Buyer).  SKU and SKU_Description are candidate keys. Primary key is SKU.
Normalization : SKU_DATA(SKU,SKU_Description, Buyer) Â BUYER(Buyer,Department)
Quick question, I hope, I am trying to create a table that has a column that is a nested table in SQL Server 2005 Express Edition. Any ideas how I could go about doing this?
First of all, we are using SQL Server 2005 with a SQL Mobile subscriber and we are attempting to use Data Partitions on our current database schema which contains associative tables for many-to-many relationships.
We have two tables, a User table and an Audit table. A user can be assigned more than one Audit. An Audit can be assigned to more than one User. So an AuditUser associative table exists. If data partitions are used based on User, then any Audits that are assigned to one or more users should be copied to the proper partition for each User (the msmerge_current_partition_mappings table with the proper partition_id values).
In order to insert records with such a schema, the following steps occur in order:
Insert new row into Audit table with new rowguidInsert entry into AuditUser table associating the auditguid with every userguid that is assigned this audit.
Merge replication triggers are fired on insert of the Audit row and another one for the insert of the AuditUser row.
When the Audit row is inserted, the replication trigger follows the following logic:
Inserts a copy of that row into the msmerge_contents table. Evaluates the row to determine which partition(s) this row should be copied to as well (msmerge_current_partition_mappings table). To do this, it checks to see if the AuditGuid is referenced in one or more AuditUser rows. Since we haven€™t inserted the AuditUser row at this point, the trigger€™s logic doesn€™t find a partition to copy this row to.
When the AuditUser row is inserted, the replication trigger performs the same logic as with the Audit row, it:
Inserts a copy of that row into the msmerge_contents table.Evaluates the row to determine which partition(s) this row should be copied to as well (msmerge_current_partition_mappings table). Since the row meets the criteria for one or more partitions, it is copied to the msmerge_current_partition_mappings table for each partition that exists.
When replication occurs, we see only the AuditUser rows copied down to our device, and not the corresponding Audit rows. Now that we understand the triggers, it is plain to see why. If the AuditUser row could be inserted first, then the trigger on the Audit row would copy that row into the proper partitions and all would work well. However, the Audit row must be inserted first, so that foreign key relationship constraints are preserved.
It seems that the Update trigger on the AuditUser row actually walks the relationships and copies any related child rows to the msmerge_current_partition_mappings table.
Kimberly Tripp describes a recipe for switching partitions in and out, thru the use of staging tables, when it comes time to "slide the window" on a partitioned table. She says that the clustered index (on staging) must be the same as that chosen for the partitioned table itself but she doesnt discuss whether or not all of the non clustered indexes need to be the same too once the ALTER TABLE Orders SWITCH PARTITION 1 TO OrdersOctober2002 and ALTER TABLE OrdersOctober2004 SWITCH TO Orders PARTITION 24 run. For the data being switched out, I wouldnt want to do anything extra. For the data being switched in, I'd like to understand if she is implying that all other indexes would be built automatically as a result of the 2nd ALTER statement?
Kimberly's article is at http://www.sqlskills.com/resources/Whitepapers/Partitioning%20in%20SQL%20Server%202005%20Beta%20II.htm#_Toc79339965
We have a huge table with around 250 million records and have implemented SQL server 2005's new table partitioning feature. Now the data seems to be evenly spread across 20 different filegroups ( each 5 GB approx ) for the same table that was occupying 100 GB itself in the PRIMARY filegroup earlier.
Still the query response times have not come down drastically but we could see a good improvement in the execution plans now.
WE ARE USING RAID 5 IN OUR PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT. ANY IDEA / THOUGHT ON HOW TO PLACE THE PARTITIONED FILEGROUPS AND THE LOG FILES IN THE RAID 5 (BTW , I'm very new to RAID concepts , any detailed instruction would be helpful ).
For my work I am now learning Sql server 2005 and I have been given a database that has been set up by someone else to work with. It is my job to get the database ready for use in reports.
My problem is that the current database has one huge table with almost 8GB of data. The table contains data from 2004 to present (and growing) from 14 different countries. The reports we use are mostly per country, but we also want to compare the 14 countries to eachother for say, whole 2006. At the moment the table is stored in one single file instead of using partitions.
I believe partitions can give a good performance boost when running the queries. But how do I do this? Currently the country codes are just plain text, can they be used for partitions?
We have a very huge database that stores 12 years of data(120 Million records). But our application mainly accesses past 3 years data i.e , the queries would scan the 120 million records even when it actually has to scan 30 million records alone (for 3 years).
Since few other important applications needs access to all the 12 years data, we are in a position to have 12 years data in the same database.
Right now we are looking for an approach that would help us to efficiently access the 3 years data alone and boost the performance.
1. Will SQL server table paritioning help in this scenario ?
Or
2. Indexed views would help us ? Is it possible to create indexed views based on year range and access the views in the stored procedures ?
I have a table that contains records of transactions with ID column is primary key
I use partition follow ID column, each partition have 1 million records.
CREATE PARTITION FUNCTION [pfTBLTRANS_ID](int) AS RANGE LEFT FOR VALUES (1000000, 2000000, 3000000, 4000000, 5000000, 6000000, 7000000, 8000000, 9000000, 10000000)
CREATE PARTITION SCHEME [psTBLTRANS_ID] AS PARTITION [pfTBLTRANS_ID] TO ([GROUP01], [GROUP02], [GROUP03], [GROUP04], [GROUP05], [GROUP06], [GROUP07], [GROUP08], [GROUP09], [GROUP10], [GROUP11])
But now I have more records with IDs that are greater than 11.000.000. So how can I add more partitions to this table ?
First off, I'm not very familiar with SQL Server. I need some guidance on what the best path to take is for this as it may not even be table partitions.
I have a huge table (155 million rows) and it's gotten so large than I can't even delete a large set of rows from it (i.e. delete everything older than 6 mo, which would be ~100 million rows). When trying to run a delete like this, it just goes for a LONG time and then just eventually runs out of memory.
The current data in this table can actually be completely cleared out soon (after Feb 1st) and I plan to do this with TRUNCATE TABLE, or just DROP and recreate. Once I do this, I want to create a way to keep this table moderately sized so it never grows that large again and it seems table partitions may be the way to go for this?
I'd like to keep the last 6mo of data in it (I have a datetime column to keep track of this). Anything older I'd like automatically removed. Can I do this with table partitioning? Create 6 partitions that store the 6 most recent months of data and everything older automatically gets dropped off?
If not partitions, what do you suggest to keep this DB modest size?
SQL 2014 I've inherited a db that has several partitioned tables. They are partitioned by month. We're approaching the last partition, 11-30-2015, so we need to extend the tables. My question is how do I do this? There are Partition Schemes and Partition Functions setup at the db level. I've figured out how to ALTER those. Next I go to a table that I know is partitioned, right-click Storage and select Manage Partitions.Â
My only option is to "create a staging table for partition switching". Not knowing what switching is, I'm not sure if this is what I want to do. All I want to do is add new partitions to the table - and remove some of the old ones since they are empty due to archiving of data.
So, what is the proper steps to adding new partitions to a table that is already partitioned?
I'm working on an ASP.Net project where I want to test code on a localmachine using a local database as a back-end, and then export it tothe production machine where it uses the hosting provider's SQL Serverdatabase on the back-end. Is there a way to export tables from oneSQL Server database to another in such a way that if a table alreadyexists in the destination database, it will be updated to reflect thechanges to the local table, without existing data in the destinationtable being lost? e.g. suppose I change some tables in my localdatabase by adding new fields. Can I "export" these changes to thedestination database so that the new fields will be added to thedestination tables (and filled in with default values), without losingdata in the destination tables?If I run the DTS Import/Export Wizard that comes with SQL Server andchoose "Copy table(s) and view(s) from the source database" and choosethe tables I want to copy, there is apparently no option *not* to copythe data, and since I don't want to copy the data, that choice doesn'twork. If instead of "Copy table(s) and view(s) from the sourcedatabase", I choose "Copy objects and data between SQL Serverdatabases", then on the following options I can uncheck the "CopyData" box to prevent data being copied. But for the "CreateDestination Objects" choices, I have to uncheck "Drop destinationobjects first" since I don't want to lose the existing data. But whenI uncheck that and try to do the copy, I get collisions between theproperties of the local table and the existing destination table,e.g.:"Table 'wbuser' already has a primary key defined on it."Is there no way to do what I want using the DTS Import/Export Wizard?Can it be done some other way?-Bennett
I have 3 columns. I would like to update a table based on job_cd and permit_nbr column. if we have same job_cd and permit_nbr, reference number should be same else it should take max(reference number) from the table +1 for all rows where reference_nbr column is null
I have table having around 100 million rows.Everyday we have an ETL process in which table will be trucnated and relaoded. Will creating a partition on the table increase the inserting speed?
I've been handed a very old database to knock into shape for an ASP.NET energy monitoring website. The current tables seem to have been created as cross tabs from the meter raw data, and are in the form- CREATE TABLE [dbo].[PW_Table] ( [Date] [int] NULL , [Meter_1] [float] NULL , [Meter_2] [float] NULL , [Meter_3] [float] NULL , [Meter_4] [float] NULL , [Meter_5] [float] NULL , [Meter_6] [float] NULL , [Meter_7] [float] NULL) ON [PRIMARY] I'd like to rearrange them into the format- ReadingID (Identity), ReadingDate (datetime), ReadingValue (float), MeterID (int) I would set up a lookup table for the Meters and join on MeterID. Converting the date value from an int into a DateTime is no problem, but I can't work out how to transpose the meter readings. Can anyone point me towards a way of doing this via SQL, or would it need to be done by hand? Thanks in advance for any help offered.
hello I am working with an existing database and there is no Foreign key between 2 tables how can i create a FK after , when the tables are allready full ?
product :
product_id report_id name
report :
report_id dateR
i want to create a FK on product.report_id, and ON DELETE CASCADE
I need to populate tables in my MS SQL 2000 DB with content from an excel file. I am not sure how this is done or how to format the excel file. If someone could help me with this it would be much appreciated!Thanks!
Hello Friends, I am right now working on a project that has a database with over 100 tables in a database. Because of extreme time constraints the developers didn't build in any relationships or constraints between or in the tables. Now I need to remodel the database such that the database is more structured and normalized. I don't have much knowledge about the database design since it is a 2 year old application and the person who developed the database is now gone. I know remodelling the database would require knowledge of the existing database and business rules. I was wondering if there are any tools that could suggest or discover relationships between tables. For eg. Lets say there are two tables named 'Customer' and 'Order'. I notice that there is a column named 'id' in Customer and a column named 'customer_id' in Order. So I ask the tool to discover a relationship between id and customer_id and it tells me that there is a one-one or one-many or no relationship by comparing values. I heard ERWin would be able to do that but thats expensive. Please do let me know asap.
I have been asked to create PK on many tables using a query on all tables where we do not have clustered indexes. Some of the tables contains PK but non-clustered. If in a table there are no PK, then how to decide on which column PK can be created? can we do it with the query without data loss and without human intervention?
Hi all, please help. I m trying to create an "empty" table from existing table for the audit trigger purpose. For now, i am trying to create an empty audit table for every table in a database named "pubs", and it's seem won't work. Please advise.. Thanks in advance.
SELECT @TABLE_NAME= MIN(TABLE_NAME) FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLES WHERE TABLE_TYPE= 'BASE TABLE' AND TABLE_NAME NOT LIKE 'audit%' AND TABLE_NAME!= 'sysdiagrams' AND TABLE_NAME!= 'Audit' AND TABLE_NAME = 'sales'
WHILE @TABLE_NAME IS NOT NULL BEGIN
SELECT @TABLE_NAME= MIN(TABLE_NAME) FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.Tables WHERE TABLE_NAME> @TABLE_NAME AND TABLE_NAME = 'sales'
SELECT @TABLE_NAME= MIN(TABLE_NAME) FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.Tables WHERE TABLE_NAME> @TABLE_NAME AND TABLE_TYPE= 'BASE TABLE' AND TABLE_NAME!= 'sysdiagrams' AND TABLE_NAME!= 'Audit' AND TABLE_NAME NOT LIKE 'audit%'
We have an existing BI/DW process that adds large chunks of data daily (~10M rows) to an existing table, as well as using Deletes to remove stale data. This scenario seems to beg for partitioning to support switching in/out data.
After lots of reading on this, I have figured out the mechanics of the switching, bit I still have some unknowns about the indexes needed to support this.
The table currently has several non-clustered indexes, including one on the partitioning column - let's call that column snapshotdate. Fortunately there are no FKs involved, and no constraints.
Most of the partitioning material I see focuses on creating a clustered PK to assist with switching. Not sure if this is actually necessary, but assume I create one using an Identity column (currently missing) plus snapshotdate.
For the other non-clustered, non-unique indexes, can I just add the snapshotdate to the end of the index? i.e. will that satisfy the switching requirement?
1. I need to make use of in memory engine for my pr-existed develop procedures ,tables ,index. do I need and code changes for application and how to store tables /indexes in OLTP memory
Assume table index may have primary key index as well.
2. If table with one primary index and 2 foreign constraints, 3 non clusters indexed. which one able o load to memory area and how t do that.
3. In memory is lock free zone. usually locks will happpen in RDMS context . how this works without locks.
i have 2 tables (both containing the same column names/datatypes), say table1 and table2.. table1 is the most recent, but some rows were deleted on accident.. table2 was a backup that has all the data we need, but some of it is old, so what i want to do is overwrrite the rows in table 2 that also exist in table 1 with the table 1 rows, but the rows in table 2 that do not exist in table one, leave those as is.. both tables have a primary key, user_id.
I'd like to create a temporary table with the same schema as an exiting table. How can I do this without hard coding the column definitions into the temporary table definition?
I'd like to do something like:
CREATE TABLE #tempTable LIKE anotherTable
..instead of...
CREATE TABLE #tempTable (id INT PRIMARY KEY, created DATETIME NULL etc...
