Query Server To Find All Partitioned Tables, Partition Name, Column Used, Partitioned By
Dec 17, 2007
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
View 3 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Nov 13, 2007
Hi All,
I am new to SQL Server. I have a table which is paritioned by Value (String). Can I write a stored procedure or an SQL Statment to truncate a particular partition in SQL Server. Please suggest me on this.
Thanks
Chow
View 2 Replies
View Related
Nov 14, 2007
Hi all,
We have a table with 15 Partitions in SQL Server.Can i write a stored procedure or an SQL statement just to truncate a particular partition by passing the partition name.
Any Suggestions??????????
Thanks
Chow.
View 11 Replies
View Related
Nov 6, 2015
Is there a way to figure out if a table is partitioned by month/day in SQL.Â
View 2 Replies
View Related
Oct 9, 2015
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?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Mar 19, 2008
Hello,
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?
Thank
View 4 Replies
View Related
Sep 28, 2007
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?
Thanks.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Mar 29, 2015
I've been using partitioned views in the past and used the check constraint in the source tables to make sure the only the table with the condition in the where clause on the view was used. In SQL Server 2012 this was working just fine (I had to do some tricks to suppress parameter sniffing, but it was working correct after doing that). Now I've been installing SQL Server 2014 Developer and used exactly the same logic and in the actual query plan it is still using the other tables. I've tried the following things to avoid this:
- OPTION (RECOMPILE)
- Using dynamic SQL to pass the parameter value as a static string to avoid sniffing.
To explain wat I'm doing is this:
1. I have 3 servers with the same source tables, the only difference in the tables is one column with the server name.
2. I've created a CHECK CONSTRAINT on the server name column on each server.
3. On one of the three server (in my case server 3) I've setup linked server connections to Server 1 and 2.
4. On Server 3 I've created a partioned view that is build up like this:
SELECT * FROM [server1].[database].[dbo].[table]
UNION ALL SELECT * FROM [server2].[database].[dbo].[table]
UNION ALL SELECT * FROM [server3].[database].[dbo].[table]5. To query the partioned view I use a query like this:
SELECT *
FROM [database].[dbo].[partioned_view_name]
WHERE [server_name] = 'Server2'
Now when I look at the execution plan on the 2014 environment it is still using all the servers instead of just Server2 like it should be. The strange thing is that SQL 2008 and 2012 are working just fine but 2014 seems not to use the correct plan.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Apr 18, 2007
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);
set showplan_text on;
-- query using the set value as a constraint
select * from tblpartitiontest
where partitionkey = 2
--show plan text on result:
|--Table Scan(OBJECT:([tblPartitionTest]), WHERE:([tblPartitionTest].[PartitionKey]=(2)) PARTITION ID:((2)))
-- query using the parameter as a constraint
declare @param_partitionkey int
set @param_partitionkey = 2
select * from tblpartitiontest
where partitionkey = @param_partitionkey
--show plan text on result:
|--Table Scan(OBJECT:([tblPartitionTest]), WHERE:([tblPartitionTest].[PartitionKey]=[@param_partitionkey]) PARTITION ID:(RangePartitionNew([@param_partitionkey],(0),(1),(2),(3))))
BTW I have reproduce this in SP 2 as well.
Any thoughts?
Thanks
Eric
View 12 Replies
View Related
Oct 31, 2015
We are using partitions and all the table are properly aligned as per the partition keys. When this particular sp, which is inserting data to a table from a different table based on the partitionkeys is called by Web UI where threading has been applied, dead lock appears.
Let me make it more clear.
ThreadOne:
Insert into table A(partitionKey,BatchId,...)
select * from table B where partitionkey = 1
ThreadTwo:
Insert into table A(partitionKey,BatchId,...)
select * from table B where partitionkey = 2
I can see sometimes it gives deadlock for this procedure, not sure about the reason, as far as I guess since the tables are partitioned and escalation is set to Auto the deadlock should not occur.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Aug 13, 2007
I apologize in advance if this is something obvious I've missed ... fresh eyes/brain and all that.
If I have a table that is using a particular partition scheme/function, is there a quick and easy way to determine which column of that table is being used for partitioning? We're examining a number of legacy structures and we're hoping to reduce the time it's going to take us to get the report management wants.
Thanks.
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 14, 2006
Hi,
I need help in looking at sample script to perform automatic creation for weekly partitioned tables and also update the partitioned view accordingly.
Any helps are very much appreciated!
Thanks,
G
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jul 23, 2005
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.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jan 23, 2008
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.
Could someone from MS clarify?
View 2 Replies
View Related
May 14, 2006
Hello,
please enlighten me regarding an issue with partitioned view... There are 3 tables in my DB of a similar structure:
CREATE TABLE Table1 (value1 varchar(1))
CREATE TABLE Table2 (value1 varchar(1))
CREATE TABLE Table3 (value1 varchar(1))
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...
View 8 Replies
View Related
Aug 22, 2007
We are using partitioned unique indexes on partitioned tables. When the Unique Index is built, should the column the index is partitioned by be the top (leftmost) column in the index? While this violates cardinality, it makes sense (at least to me) that the first thing the query execution would do is figure out which partition(s) contain the result set, then filter from there.
What do you guys think? Is there any documentation on optimizing partitioned indexes?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Mar 16, 2008
Hi All,
My database's design is set out here. In summary, I'm trying to model a Stock Exchange for a Technical Analysis application written using Visual C++. In order to create the hierachy I'm using a Nested Set Model. I'm now trying to write code to add and delete equities (or, more generically, nodes) to the database using a form presented to the user in my application. I have example SQL code to create the necessary add and delete procedures that calculate the changes to the values in the lft and rgt columns, but these examples focus around a single table, where as my design aggregates rows from multiple tables using UNION ALL:
Code Snippet
CREATE VIEW vw_NSM_DBHierarchy -- Nested Set Model Database Hierarchy
AS
SELECT clmStockExchange, clmLeft, clmRight FROM tblStockExchange_
UNION ALL
SELECT clmMarkets, clmLeft, clmRight FROM tblMarkets_
UNION ALL
SELECT clmSectors, clmLeft, clmRight FROM tblSectors_
UNION ALL
SELECT clmEPIC, clmLeft, clmRight FROM tblEquities_
Essentially, I'm trying to create an updateable view but I receive the error "UNION ALL View is not updatable because a partitioning column was not found". I suspect that my design in wrong or lacks and this problem is highlighting the design flaws so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Dec 5, 2007
I have a query that joins two large partitioned tables and depending on the values in the where clause, I can get dramatically different performance results.
The first query completed in around 7s and has 47,000 logical reads.
select mo.monitor_id,
mo.site_id,
mo.testtime,
sum(mo.NumBytes),
sum(mo.DNSTime),
sum(mo.ConnectTime),
sum(mo.FirstByteTime),
sum(mo.ContentTime),
sum(mo.RelocTime)
from monitor_raw mr(nolock), monitor_object mo(nolock)
where mr.monitor_id in (5339, 5341, 5342, 943842, 943866)
and mr.testtime between 'Oct 31 2007 3:00:00:000PM' and 'Nov 30 2007 3:00:00:000PM'
and mo.returncode = 200
and mr.site_id in (101,102,105,109,110,112,115,117,119,122,126,151,132,139,129,135,121,138,143,142,159,148,128,171,176,177,178,111,113,116,118,120,127,133,131,130,174,179,185,205,200,202,203,204,210,211,208,209,212,213,216,199,214,224,225,229,230,232,235,241,245,247,250,254,261,267,264,265,266,268,269)
and mr.escalationlevel = 0
and mr.monitor_id = mo.monitor_id
and mr.testtime = mo.testtime
and mr.site_id = mo.site_id group by mo.monitor_id, mo.site_id, mo.testtime
The second query takes 188s to complete and has 1.8m logical reads. The only difference between the two is the value of the monitor_ids in the where clause.
select mo.monitor_id,
mo.site_id,
mo.testtime,
sum(mo.NumBytes),
sum(mo.DNSTime),
sum(mo.ConnectTime),
sum(mo.FirstByteTime),
sum(mo.ContentTime),
sum(mo.RelocTime)
from monitor_raw mr(nolock), monitor_object mo(nolock)
where mr.monitor_id in (152682, 5339, 5341, 5342, 268080)
and mr.testtime between 'Oct 31 2007 3:00:00:000PM' and 'Nov 30 2007 3:00:00:000PM'
and mo.returncode = 200
and mr.site_id in (101,102,105,109,110,112,115,117,119,122,126,151,132,139,129,135,121,138,143,142,159,148,128,171,176,177,178,111,113,116,118,120,127,133,131,130,174,179,185,205,200,202,203,204,210,211,208,209,212,213,216,199,214,224,225,229,230,232,235,241,245,247,250,254,261,267,264,265,266,268,269)
and mr.escalationlevel = 0
and mr.monitor_id = mo.monitor_id
and mr.testtime = mo.testtime
and mr.site_id = mo.site_id group by mo.monitor_id, mo.site_id, mo.testtime
The two tables have clustered indexes on monitor_id, testtime and site_id. Comparing the execution plan, I can see why there is such a difference in performance. The second query performs a clustered index seek on the monitor_object table starting at the lowest monitor_id, testtime & site_id through the highest monitor_id, testtime & site_id. The first query performs a clustered index seek where the monitor_id, testtime and site_id equals the same values from the monitor_raw table.
My question is, how can I force the second query to use the same execution plan as the first so that I can get better performance?
One possible workaround that I could use is to execute five individual queries, one for each monitor_id and then union the results together but this would require significant code changes to my stored procs.
Thanks,
Tim
View 5 Replies
View Related
May 19, 2014
I am building three partitioned, clustered column store tables.I was researching whether it was faster to populate a staging table and swap it into the partitioned table or to directly insert into the partitioned table.The first partition for the three tables will have:
Table F: 50M rows, 6 columns wide, partitioned on a date column (1 date, 2 bigint keys, and two varchar columns)
Table D1: 50M rows, 150 columns wide, partitioned on a bigint
Table D2: 19M rows, 300 columns wide, partitioned on a bigint
If build the data that would go into partition 1 in a non partitioned column store, I get these table sizes:
Table F: 476 MB
Table D1: 6,800 MB
Table D2: 5,496 MB
If build the same data directly in the partitioned column store, my table sizes end up being:
Table F: 579 MB
Table D1: 6,800 MB
Table D2: 5,364 MB
That's a 20% difference on Table F, the narrow table.Looking at the row groups, I see 47 identical row groups in partition 1 and the unpartitioned table, but the average "size_in_bytes" is consistently 20% smaller in the unpartitioned table.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2005
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!
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 27, 2008
Schema below.
The execution plan shows that this query is correctly optimized to check only the underlying Employee_2008 table.
select * from Employee where ReportingYear = '2008'
This query is not optimized and checks both Employee_2008 and Employee_2007:
declare @ry varchar(4)
set @ry = '2008'
select * from Employee where ReportingYear = @ry
How can I get second query to be optimized correctly?
Schema:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Employee_2007](
[EmployeeID] [int] NOT NULL,
[Name] [varchar](50) NOT NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Employee_2008](
[EmployeeID] [int] NOT NULL,
[Name] [varchar](50) NOT NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
CREATE VIEW [dbo].[Employee]
AS
SELECT
'2007' ReportingYear,
EmployeeID,
Name
FROM Employee_2007
UNION ALL
SELECT
'2008' ReportingYear,
EmployeeID,
Name
FROM Employee_2008
View 3 Replies
View Related
Nov 2, 2007
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!
Philip Kelley
View 7 Replies
View Related
Jun 19, 2001
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
INSERT Sales_West VALUES (16544, 2465, 'West')
INSERT Sales_West VALUES (32123, 4309, 'West')
INSERT Sales_North VALUES (16544, 3229, 'North')
INSERT Sales_North VALUES (26544, 4000, 'North')
INSERT Sales_East VALUES ( 22222, 43332, 'East')
INSERT Sales_East VALUES ( 77777, 10301, 'East')
INSERT Sales_South VALUES (23456, 4320, 'South')
INSERT Sales_South VALUES (16544, 9999, 'South')
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;
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 12, 2008
Thanks in advance in reading this post ! I'm facing a situation in sql server 2000 sp4 with partitioned views.
I have a partition views that joins about 10 tables, in each table there is a check constraint.
For example, if a exec a select count(*) from VIEW where col1 = '20080101' , it goes for the table that has data for '20080101' .
If I exec a select col1,col2,col3,col4 from VIEW where col1='20080101', it goes to all tables and make an index seek.
I want the beaviour of query 1, beause it is just looking on 1 table and not one the 10.
Thanks in advance !
View 3 Replies
View Related
Dec 7, 2000
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
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jun 12, 2015
I'm having a problem creating a partitioned table with a filestream column. I'm getting error: Cannot create table 'MyTable' since a partition scheme is not specified for FILESTREAM data
CREATE TABLE MyTable
(
IndexID BIGINT IDENTITY(1,1),
PartitionID SMALLINT,
IndexGUID UNIQUEIDENTIFIER NOT NULL ROWGUIDCOL
[code]...
I actually managed to get the table created. The table below gets created. I had to specifically indicate that the unique constraint is on [PRIMARY] (non-partitioned) and create a partition scheme in the filestram filegroup. However my problem now is with partition switching. I successfully created a non-partitioned staging table identical to the partitioned table, but the switching operation doesn't work.
CREATE TABLE MyTable
(
IndexID BIGINT IDENTITY(1,1),
PartitionID SMALLINT,
IndexGUID UNIQUEIDENTIFIER NOT NULL ROWGUIDCOL
CONSTRAINT DF_MyTable_IndexGUID DEFAULT (NEWID())
[code]...
I get error:
'ALTER TABLE SWITCH' statement failed. The table 'MyTable' is partitioned while index 'UQNP_MyTable_IndexGUID' is not partitioned.
However, I can't drop the non-partitioned unique index on MyTable as it violates the filestream, and would make the table unusable.
View 0 Replies
View Related
Jul 7, 2015
I have some Partitioned Views and on all queries using a table for the in clause, table elimination isn't happening.
Check Constraint is on the oid column
This works as expected, only goes to 2 tables;
SELECT *
FROM view_oap_all
WHERE oid IN ( '05231416529481', '06201479586431' )
This works as expected, only goes to 2 tables;
SELECT *
FROM view_oap_all
WHERE oid IN ( SELECT oid
FROM owners
WHERE oid IN ( '05231416529481', '06201479586431' ) )
This is checking all tables (headingnames are unique), ive tried this for the last 3 hours on many different tables containing the oid column.
Unless I write the oid as in the above queries it just doesn't work.
SELECT *
FROM view_oap_all
WHERE oid IN ( SELECT oid
FROM owners
WHERE headingname = 'TestSystem' )
View 6 Replies
View Related
Aug 3, 2015
I have a query that has a left join with a large partitioned table. The partitioned table has 10s of millions of records, and each partition has about 100,000 records.
The left join is part of an insert that gets a column from the partitioned table, if the column exists. The query contains the partition ID and all other joined columns are part of a non-clustered index.
Through the profiler, I found that there were millions of reads and the execution plan was giving me a table scan on the partitioned table.
I changed the query to do the insert followed by an update with inner join. That did the trick, but it worries me that SQL Server 2014 behaves differently from 2012 or 2008R2, which can make upgrading very time consuming.
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jul 28, 2015
I have few tables, which are replicated and partitioned. They also have archival process. I want to avoid having to run that same process on the subscriber.
Replication of partition switching is easy. However I am not sure how to replicate merge range and empty filegroup/file drops.
There the following article options:
Copy file group associations
Copy table partitioning schemes
Copy index partitioning schemes
I am not sure if these are enough to implement the replication of merge range and empty filegroup/file drops.
I could not find and option to copy partition functions.
View 0 Replies
View Related
Aug 23, 2006
Hi,
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?
Regards,
Yifat
View 3 Replies
View Related
Aug 17, 2001
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?
Thanks,
Rob
View 2 Replies
View Related
Mar 6, 2006
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.
Thank you...
View 6 Replies
View Related
Jun 18, 2007
USE Northwind
GO
CREATE TABLE myTable99_1 (
Accountchar(3)
, Ledgerchar(4)
, PostDatedatetime
, PRIMARY KEY (Account, Ledger)
, CHECK(PostDate> '1/1/1999' and PostDate < '12/31/1999 23:59:59'))
CREATE TABLE myTable99_2 (
Accountchar(3)
, Ledgerchar(4)
, PostDatedatetime
, PRIMARY KEY (Account, Ledger)
, CHECK(PostDate> '1/1/2000' and PostDate < '12/31/2000 23:59:59'))
CREATE TABLE myTable99_3 (
Accountchar(3)
, Ledgerchar(4)
, PostDatedatetime
, PRIMARY KEY (Account, Ledger)
, CHECK(PostDate> '1/1/2001' and PostDate < '12/31/2001 23:59:59'))
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
What up, homey?
View 5 Replies
View Related
