I have a big table (heap)... well, not so big, I have a small server
and I want to spread access to it across several new disks dedicated
only to that table.
I known its possible to do that creating a clustered index with "ON
filegroup" option but I want to maintain it as a heap, is there any
way to do this without dropping indexes/references - bulk unload -
create table - bulk load - create indexes?.
I have my user defined objects created on the PRIMARY filegroup.
I have a secondary filegroup existing for the database.
How can I move all my user objects to the secondary filegroup from the
primary filegroup.
Info on this is appreciated.
regards
Sush.
I have created a new filegroup and would like to move my indices there. Do I need to create a file for each index or can I just specify the filegroup in Enterprise Manager?
Thanks!
Ellen
I need to know if it is possible to move ONE table from an existing filegroup to another existing filegroup.
The answer I received to use ALTER database only modifies the file/filegroup name or changes the default filegroup.
Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.
Hi,
In SQL Server 2000 how to move a secondary data file to different filegroup without removing and re-creating the secondary data file.
Thanks in advance.
-S
Is there anyway to move tables without any indexes to a filegroup?
View 1 Replies View RelatedOK, I know this is out there all over and yes I did a search for this topic; however, I am confused about tables with an image data type and with moving text file group to another filegroup.
Here is what I have:
I have a table storing imaged documents and has become very large. I want to move the table to another filegroup. The table is created like this:
USE [PD51_Data]
GO
/****** Object: Table [dbo].[SCANNEDDOCUMENTS] Script Date: 05/13/2008 14:52:40 ******/
SET ANSI_NULLS ON
GO
SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
GO
SET ANSI_PADDING ON
GO
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SCANNEDDOCUMENTS](
[DocID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[CaseID] [int] NOT NULL,
[DocName] [varchar](50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL,
[Doc] [image] NOT NULL,
[DocLocation] [varchar](255) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL,
[DocNotes] [text] COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL,
[TopicID] [int] NULL,
[ScannedDocumentsCheckSum] [varchar](128) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL,PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[DocID] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY]
) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY]
GO
SET ANSI_PADDING OFF
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[SCANNEDDOCUMENTS] WITH NOCHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [ISCANNEDDOCUMENTS2] FOREIGN KEY([TopicID])
REFERENCES [dbo].[TOPICS] ([TopicID])
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[SCANNEDDOCUMENTS] CHECK CONSTRAINT [ISCANNEDDOCUMENTS2]
On a test DB, I moved the clustered and nonclustered indexes to a secondary filegroup no problem, but it still shows to be stored in the primary filegroup. I read an article about having to create a new table in the secondary in order to move the images and text file group. Has anyone come across this?
Do I need to drop the clustered index and FK to move to a secondary filegroup?
Or
Do I create a new table into the secondary filegroup and then add the Clustered index and constraints?
SQL 2008 R2
I have a partitioned table in which one of the partitions is on the Primary filegroup. I want to move the data off of that Primary filegroup, and and on to a new filegroup named RTFG6.
Scheme and function currently defined as:
CREATE PARTITION SCHEME [PS1_Left_id] AS PARTITION [PF1_Left_id] TO ([RTFG1], [RTFG2], [RTFG3], [RTFG4], [RTFG5], [PRIMARY])
CREATE PARTITION FUNCTION [PF1_Left_id](int) AS RANGE LEFT FOR VALUES (10, 15, 35, 48, 53)
I've tried split and merge, and for whatever reason, always end up with the Primary filegroup holding data.
How do i get it off of Primary completely, and onto RTFG1 to RTFG6?
I don't want to export to a holding table and re-create the table if i can avoid it, due to identity columns and relationships with multiple tables.
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
View 3 Replies View RelatedSQL Server 2005
We have a table that simply stores all changes to a specific record in another table and can get very large. The relationship is such there are many records in the transaction table for each record in the parent table. How many depends on how many times the record has been updated and can contain multiple entries for each column.
The transaction table contains a clustered index over a column that is defined as a UNIQUEIDENTIFIER. There are other indexes as well over business fields (basically foreign key columns). This obviously has some performance implications and becomes fragmented very quickly during heavy loads. Then as expected, the performance issues cascade to queries, etc.
Anyway, we are looking at two options - (a) removing the clustered index altogether and treat it as a heap or (b) add another column defined as identity (1,1) and make that the clustered index.
My initial research tells me the heap is not the way to go as there still may be performance issues with it. Using the second option guarantees me that all new data is always added to the end and will minimize the fragmentation. Keep in mind we do have regular maintenance jobs to rebuild / reorganize indexes and lob data.
Can anyone shed their thoughts on these two options for this situation?
I have read in a couple of books about overheads when a page split occurs on a heap (a table with no clustered index)
My question is - how (or why) would a page split occur on a heap (as the table is in no particular order)?
Hi guru,I've been new company for only a month and started analysing IndexFragmentation.After I ran DBCC DBREINDEX and capture data into permanent table, I 'veseen lots of tables with no indexes. These tables showed:Very low scan density,High extent fragmentationHigh Avg. Bytes Free per PageWhat are the best strategies to defragment tables with no indexes?I'm planning to make a rule that each table must have a clustered indexand this index must be created on the best column (highestselectivity).Please help.Thanks,Silaphet,
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi,
I have started experiencing the following errors
"Unable to allocate memory for a hash node heap"
"The system reports 99 percent memory load. There are 8584744960 bytes of physical memory
with 5799936 bytes free. There are 8796092891136 bytes of virtual memory with 8794956038144 bytes free.
The paging file has 7447801856 bytes with 5201920 bytes free."
The packages running have been running for the last year with no issues. Admintidley they were the only jobs running against the Instance.
I have now introduced additional databases and packages.
The package do not over lap when they run so there is currently no contention for resource.
I have no idea where to start looking to identify the culprit.
I have observed the available pagefile being completely consumed and physical memory. The only way I can get it released si by bouncing the instance.
the only thing that has changed is pagefile. The system has 8GB RAM and was configured with a 4GB pagefile. I have recently created a second pagefile on
an alternative disk of 12GB and reduced the 4GB pagefile to 100MB and left it on the root drive. When I view the pagefile size in properties, it says that there
is only 100MB even though it creates a 12GB pagefile.
Can anyone shed some light on my problem?
I appreciate your help
Regards
Marcus
So I've stumbled across an audit table on one of our systems that has reached a hearty 180M rows in size.
The table is a heap (no indexes whatsoever).
Each record has a datetime value indicating when it was created.
I need to delete everything that was created prior to the last 6 months; what is my best plan of attack?
We have a highly transactional database. It was owned by a third party before but now both the database and the application is on our site and we are trying to improve this project. So, we have a big (902919 rows), heap table, which is getting bigger and bigger everyday and sometimes deadlocks occur. The table has only 4 columns, "token", "type", "value" and "cacheTime", unique index cannot be created. It has one index on "token"(char(36)) and "type"(varchar(50)) ("value" should also be included but it is nvarchar(max)).
<deadlock-list>
<deadlock victim="process670ba10c8">
<process-list>
<process id="process670ba10c8" taskpriority="0" logused="0" waitresource="RID: 6:1:14949918:1" waittime="417" ownerId="347523711" transactionname="SELECT" lasttranstarted="2014-07-01T17:43:35.233" XDES="0x117cf7da40"
[Code] ....
Facing deadlock issues in my ETL job .
The driver table , which keeps track of what datamarts ran and for what date range gets updated frequently during the etl run . There can be as many as 250 updates issued on this table in a single second.
Now this table is a heap , and there are no indexes on it .
During these updates , we encounter deadlocks causing the ETL job to fail .
Will adding an index faciltate?
IF (SELECT OBJECT_ID('t1')) IS NOT NULLDROP TABLE t1GOCREATE TABLE t1 (c1 INT, c2 INT)DECLARE @n INTSET @n = 1WHILE @n <= 454BEGININSERT INTO t1 VALUES (@n, @n)SET @n = @n + 1ENDSELECT name, indid, CASE indidWHEN 0 THEN 'Table'WHEN 1 THEN 'Clustered Index'ELSE 'Nonclustered Index'END AS Type,dpages, rowcntFROM sysindexesWHERE id = OBJECT_ID('T1')name indid Type dpages rowcnt---- ----- ---- ------ ------NULL 0 Table 2 454I have a table containing 454 rows of two columnsof type INT with each being 4 bytesc1 int = 4 bytes+c2 int = 4 bytes=8 bytes per rowIf I entered 454 rows : 454 * 8 = 3,632 byteseach SQL Page is 8KB = 8 * 1024 bytes= 8,192 bytesa data page header takes the first 96 bytesleaving 8096 bytes for data and row offsets.Each record uses a row offset at the end of the pageconsisting of 2 bytes. 454 * 2 = 908 bytes.8096 - 3632 - 908 = 3,556 bytes. Should this befree data bytes?For a heap table, does SQL add an internal uniqueidentifiercolumn also? or my question is when does SQL adda uniqueidentifier? I am reading Inside SQL 2000 andtrying to understand a few things.A uniqueidentifier of 4 bytes gets added when a clustered indexexists but it is NOT a UNIQUE clustered index. AND onlyif duplicate record is added those two records only geta uniqueidentifier value.But in my example it's a heap table with no indexes. Evenon a heap table with no indexes a ROWID or Uniqueidentifierget added? Based on the INSERT statement above allvalues are unique.So what am I missing to understand why 453 rowsmake one data page to be used whereas 454 rowsmake two data pages to be used?Thank you
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have bunch of heap tables and the fragmentation seems to be high, i am not sure whether i shall add index for them, as these tables are inserted and updated every day.
View 4 Replies View RelatedI trying to get the moving total (juts as moving average). It always sum up the current record plus previous two records as well and grouped by EmpId.For example, attaching a image of excel calculation.
View 3 Replies View Relatedhello,
ihave atablelike this -
z uniqueidentifier
a varchar(40)
b varchar(40)
c varchar(40)
d varchar(40)
e varchar(40)
f text
g image
I am asked to split this table into 2 filegroups and move text and images on to one and other stuff on one.
I am new to MS-SQL 7.0.
Can anyone suggest me how to go for it.
Thanking you.
i understand that the filegroup for a table can be specified in the CREATE Table statement. just out of curiosity, is there any way to move a table to a different filegroup, that too, if the table contains data.
View 2 Replies View RelatedHi,
There is a table which is about 50GB is size.
I am thinking of placing the database of this table into a separate .ndf on a separate drive on the server.
Is it possible to place this particular table into a searate drive to increase the performance even more?
Basically my question is: is it possible to place tables into separate .ndf files?
Thanks
Hi,
I have created a database with two filegroups called FG_GroupData, FG_GroupHistory.
FG_GroupData is set as default.
FG_GroupData contains two secondary data files i.e. GroupData1.ndf and GroupData2.ndf
I can create a table so that it is stored in FG_GroupHistory. i.e.
CREATE TABLE dbo.OrdersHistory
(
OrderID int NOT NULL,
ProductID int NOT NULL,
CustomerID int NOT NULL,
UnitPrice money NOT NULL,
OrderQty smallint NOT NULL
)
ON FG_GroupHistory
Questions:
1)
How do I add tables to each .ndf file inside a group i.e. FG_GroupData
For example, how do I add a table to GroupData1.ndf and one to GroupData2.ndf ?
2)
I guess there is no need to place the file name i.e. .ndf inside the select query
Thanks
What is the advantage of having two secondary files inside a filegroup.
For example, I can create a table and place it inside a filegroup which obviously will use the secondary files.
Not sure why some DBAs create just one but otherscreate more than one secondar files in a filegroup.
I have read the booksonline but can not figure out the advantages.
Thanks
Can anyone show me in SQL7 how to obtain Available Space on a particular filegroup in a database (not the database or datafile).
I am trying to include this in a script to monitor my database which uses Filegroups and I have every other info that I need (from the sysfiles table) except the available space. Thanks in advance!
hi...
I don't know well this statement...
1. from Transcender
.....
One file for each filegroup is sufficient because creating multiple files for the same filegroup on the same disk does not provide any performance gain
2. from bol
....
Therefore, creating more files per filegroup can help increase performance because a separate thread is used to scan each file in parallel
what is correct ?
thanks !!
Hi ,
I am restoring a VLDB from a Standby server which has just .mdf and .ldf to my production server which has .mdf and a file group with a single .ndf
file, i want to restore the databse on to the Secondary file(is this possible) i checked the BOl but could not figure out of what command is to be given
Any hhelp will be greatly appreciated..
Thanks in advance
Jane
Is it possible to back up one filegroup independently from the second when tables
in one group have foreign key relationships with tables in the second group?
I want to remove a filegroup.
ALTER DATABASE MyDBName
REMOVE FILEGROUP MyFileGroupName
It says:
Server: Msg 5042, Level 16, State 7, Line 1
The filegroup 'MyFileGroupName' cannot be removed because it is not empty.
Question: How can I tell what is on this filegroup.
<Forgive me if it is a simple BOL answer, but I'm having trouble finding it>
Hello,
A few days ago one our database's default filegroup filled up. To solve the problem one of my colleagues created a new filegroup. This didn't solve the problem as no objects were placed on this filegroup and the initial one is still full. The idea was to expand the original filegroup over a new physical disk, not to create a new filegroup on that disk. Unfortunately, this is what happened.
To solve this I want to delete the new filegroup, but when I issue the command 'alter database PvgOmcsOds remove filegroup ternary' I get the message 'Server: Msg 5042, Level 16, State 7, Line 1 The filegroup 'ternary' cannot be removed because it is not empty.' Yet there're no objects placed on this filegroup.
How can I get rid of this filegroup?
Stef
I am managing 120 gb SQL7 database. The 120 GB is in a RAID5 (Hardware RAID). At begining, I think I should create a user defined filegroup besides Primary filegroup, as BOL suggested.
After I read some discussions here, It appears I cannot gain any performance by adding second filegroups. Now I want to drop the filegroup I created. The Question is How?. If I do alter database, move all files from userdefined filegroup, does this mean my userdefined filegroup has gone?
Someone can help me on this!
Thanks a lot.
I have 2 test database identical in size and table structure, only one resides on filegroups and one resides on a single file.
From everything I have heard filegroups are suppose to improve performance. I stop and start the server before each test to clean out
cache. When I run the filegroup test initially the first run averages 20 seconds slower then the database sitting on the single file. However
on consective runs there is a significant improvement in performance with filegroups verses single files. I have
the indexes sitting on a separate filegroup and 2 additional filegroups to spread the tables across. Does any one know what would be causing
the performance to degrade on the initial run of the test. (The test by the way is a stored procedure that runs a select statement against each table).
Any Info Will help Thanks
Barb
Hi all,
I am trying to remove one of the filegroups in the development database to shrink its size down. I started with emptying and removing its files and ran:
dbcc shrinkfile
(pubs_data_1,emptyfile)
go
and it ran fine, with 'DBCC execution completed' message
but when I tried :
alter database pubs
remove file pubs_data_1
go
I got 'pubs_data_1 cannot be removed because it is not empty'.
I even tried to go to each of the tables and delete from them first which didn't work, then drop all tables in that filegroup (I knew which tables are located on that filegroup), that didn't work either.
Any ideas? Is there a way to check what else sits on that filegroup?
Thanks