Title: Partitions in RH AS 2.1
Hi!
IIRC, the command for formatting was mke2fs for
making ext2 fs (is there an mke3fs as well?).
mount -t ext2 /dev/device /mnt/directory mounts
ext2 type device named "device" to given directory
Tanel.
- Original Message -
From:
Ramon E.
much better -- now I understand :)
--- "Johnston, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah... That's why the example helps... The text above the example is
> unclear
> but the example is a little bit better...
>
>
>
>
> "If you find it is taking a long time for the tablespace to quiesce,
> it is
Ah... That's why the example helps... The text above the example is unclear
but the example is a little bit better...
"If you find it is taking a long time for the tablespace to quiesce, it is
possible to identify the transactions which are preventing the read-only
state from taking effect. Th
- Original Message -
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 5:59 AM
> Jack, maybe this has been covered. I seem to recall from the B&R module
> (knew it would prove useful sometime) that after you make a tablespace
> read-only that you
Maybe because drop table is actually a modification of the data dictionary.
I recall that Oracle training thing where they have you start a long-running
select on a table in one session, then drop the table in another session,
and the select on the dropped table keeps on running OK.
It does seem
gt; If I've misunderstood the terminology I'm terribly sorry.
>
>
> "Darrell Landrum"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Multiple recipients of
> list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
p.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Partitions of table read
only
It waits for an (instance-wide) enqueue which will not succeed until the all
transactions have completed, giving an appearance of a hang.
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 2:39 PM
> Food for thought...
> How do
Discovery during the parse...?
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/18/03 09:39PM >>>
Food for thought...
How does Oracle know that an existing transaction (which may be more
than the current statement) will not alter data in the RO Tablespace
until the transaction is completed (rollback/commit)?
--
Danie
dunno but then the docs are ambiguous aren't they? They can be read
as active in that tablespace
in any case once I bounced the database and was the only session, I
could make it read only. More importantly, and germane to the original
question, I could actually drop the table, something I did
Food for thought...
How does Oracle know that an existing transaction (which may be more
than the current statement) will not alter data in the RO Tablespace
until the transaction is completed (rollback/commit)?
--
Daniel W. Fink
http://www.optimaldba.com
Rachel Carmichael wrote:
The admin guid
mostly selects... but according to what everyone is telling me, if
there are any transactions in the database at all, it will prevent me
from making it read only
--- Kirtikumar Deshpande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Will that be all DML activity?
> All the times?
> In a datawarehouse?
> In our
The admin guide doesn't say "no transactions in the database". In fact,
it specifically says in the tablespace:
" You do not have to wait for transactions to complete before issuing
the ALTER TABLESPACE...READ ONLY statement. When the statement is
issued, the target tablespace goes into a transiti
I don't know, the system in which I
-alter tablespace sales_data read only
-test some queries
-drop table readtest
-alter tablespace read write
had 12+ sessions, and at least 3 were writing data, including one of my
own.
I'm not saying that what is being presented isn't true, just that you
still h
Will that be all DML activity?
All the times?
In a datawarehouse?
In our data marts most activity is for just 'reading' stuff a lot of stuff
locally... Not many
active transactions.. So I can make TSs read only almost any time I want to..
- Kirti
--- Rachel Carmichael <[EMAIL PROTECTED
ARGH!
Well, that pretty much kills the idea of using this for my data
warehouse as there is always activity in it. Dang!
Okay, I'll try it from my laptop as I can control users there :)
--- Daniel Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rachel,
> It is not active transactions against that table
that would be sensible... :)
I'll try this again, from home and see -- but as Kirti says, if there
has to be no activity in the database, that would explain the problem
--- Arup Nanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about finding out what the session is waiting on, from
> v$session_wait?
>
that would explain it... and means I have to test it on my laptop, this
database is rarely quiet even in test
--- Kirtikumar Deshpande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, in the *database* .
>
> - Kirti
>
>
> --- Rachel Carmichael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > all other active trans
In order to complete an alter to read only, ALL transactions against the
database that were started before you issued that alter command must
complete before the alter will continue... From the concepts guide...
The ALTER TABLESPACE ... READ ONLY statement places the tablespace in a
transitional
How about finding out what the session is waiting on, from v$session_wait?
- Original Message -
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 3:29 PM
> there WERE no active transactions against that tablespace.
>
> The steps I took were:
Rachel,
It is not active transactions against that tablespace, it is active
transactions. Yup, period! As soon as all the active transactions complete, the
tablespace will complete altering itself.
Dan
Rachel Carmichael wrote:
>
> there WERE no active transactions against that tablespa
Unfortunately, in the *database* .
- Kirti
--- Rachel Carmichael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> all other active transactions in the database? or against that table?
>
> if in the database, it will have to wait, this is a testing database
> and work is going on in it.
>
> if against that table
Jack, maybe this has been covered. I seem to recall from the B&R module
(knew it would prove useful sometime) that after you make a tablespace
read-only that you should take a backup. Recovering a database with
tablespaces that were read-write when backed up but are read-only now
requires an extra
o ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: Partitions of table read only
Jack,
It is possible to have some partitions of a table read only and some read write. Possible even if they are subparti
there WERE no active transactions against that tablespace.
The steps I took were:
as system:
1) create tablespace as an LMT
2) create table within that tablespace
3) attempt to make the tablespace read-only
when that hung I logged out (which certainly killed any active
transactions against that
Rachel,
A TS can't become read only if there are active transactions against it. You
must wait till they all finish or kill them.
A word of advice - if you decide to kill the sessions, bring the tablespace
offline and then online to flush the buffers to disk. This will ensure that
the delayed blo
all other active transactions in the database? or against that table?
if in the database, it will have to wait, this is a testing database
and work is going on in it.
if against that table, no one else knows anything about that table. As
far as any other user in the database knows, it doesn't exi
Title: Partitions of table read only
Jack,
It is possible to have some partitions of a table
read only and some read write. Possible even if they are subpartitions. They are
requird, say, in a DW environment, where the current quarter's data is read
write but the rest are read only.
You c
Rachel,
You forgot to kill all other active transactions... ;(
- Kirti
--- Rachel Carmichael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> okay, am I missing something?
>
> I created an LMT. Created a table in it. Gave no one quota on the
> tablespace.
>
> did (both as system and sysdba)
>
> alter table
nderson
Rachel Carmichael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
18/06/2003 18:29
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: Partitions of table read only
okay, am I missing
Wow, great question, Rachel.
I truly didn't think of that until you asked, but, it turns out it was
LMT, uniform size, etc.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/18/03 11:50AM >>>
that actually makes sense when you think about it, with one question
--
was the tablespace a dictionary-managed one or an LMT?
If
Jack,
We use the methods you are asking about. The partitions are created
and the table uses the range option to place the data in the correct
partition according to the date field. Each year I place the partition
in a read-only status and the back it up and place it on the shelf. RMAN
will not ba
okay, am I missing something?
I created an LMT. Created a table in it. Gave no one quota on the
tablespace.
did (both as system and sysdba)
alter tablespace test_drop read only;
and hung
what did I forget to do?
--- Rachel Carmichael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that actually makes sense
that actually makes sense when you think about it, with one question --
was the tablespace a dictionary-managed one or an LMT?
If it was dictionary-managed, it makes perfect sense. The metadata
about the table and the extents used in the tablespace are not stored
IN that tablespace, so drop table
I haven't tested this but would imagine it entirely possible.
What I wanted to throw out though, is somewhat of a related caution.
You can drop a table from a read only tablespace. I discovered this in
test, fortunately when I was finished testing with that table and
intentionally dropped it whil
Not having a partition with MAXVALUE in partitioned table is
not a problem (as long, as you know, that there will be no values outside of the
existing partitions range).
Igor Neyman, OCP DBA[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From:
Robertson Lee -
lerobe
To: Mult
Thanks for that but we don't really have the spare space to set up the new
tablespaces and the old one. Thats why I initially thought about unloading
the data.
Thanks again
Lee
-Original Message-
Sent: 05 June 2002 16:31
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lee,
I've been do
Lee,
I've been doing a lot of work with reorging partitioned tables and
splitting them.
I'm on Oracle version 8.0.4 and 2.6 of Sun Solaris.
I don't believe that you need to unload your data. You should be able to
create your new tablespaces to the correct size. I believe you plan on
creati
intended
only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed,
and
may contain information that is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL and exempt
from
disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in
error,
you are prohibited from copying, distributing, or using the
inf
intended
only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed,
and
may contain information that is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL and exempt
from
disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in
error,
you are prohibited from copying, distributing, or using the
inf
Hamid,
You need to think about how meaningful a range is
if it is just based on Sequence Numbers as opposed to Creation Date.
Martin http://www.oracle-rescue.com/
-Original Message-
Sent: 17 January 2002 16:29
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Thanks Ron,
So it's better I put p
Thanks Ron,
So it's better I put partitions in deffrent tablespace and also for better
performance in diffrent physical disks, it will helps.
I am going to do the partition on Creation date or on Primary Key(PK is a
sequence number), don't know can we use PK as a range for partitioning or
not?
Tha
Having said all that, I suggest that you keep the statistics on these
partitions up to date to help the optimizer...
Of course, if data in some of the partitions become static, there is no need
to analyze those partitions.
- Kirti
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:
Hamid,
Partitions are basically for the use of Oracle. It allows you to break
apart a large table into several smaller sections to help in the
management of the table data and to help Oracle find the data you
requested. Under ideal conditions, Oracle will only select the smallest
area to search fo
You asked which of two outcomes will occur if you partiton tables after
development:
1. "...do we have to change the code for accessing diffrent partition..."
or
2. "...this will handle by oracle itself."
Of your two proposed outcomes, 1. is the former and 2. is the latter.
Oracle will handle ac
what do you mean the latter Jack
-Original Message-
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:00 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
The latter.
Jack
Jack C. Applewhite
Database Administrator/Developer
OCP Oracle8 DBA
iNetProfit, Inc.
Austin, Tex
The latter.
Jack
Jack C. Applewhite
Database Administrator/Developer
OCP Oracle8 DBA
iNetProfit, Inc.
Austin, Texas
www.iNetProfit.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(512)327-9068
-Original Message-
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 3:07 PM
To: Multiple recipients o
47 matches
Mail list logo
