Search Results

Search found 1150 results on 46 pages for 'partitioning'.

Page 3/46 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • MySQL table partitioning qn:

    - by JVXR
    I have a table (innodb) that will have billions of records eventually. Every 2nd week I expect ~ 500K records to get dropped into the table. I would want to partition this table based on the date on which the data is imported - luckily this is a field in the table that is of the format yyyy-mm-dd - Is it possible to partition it based on this date column ? I tried looking at the 18th chapter of mysql docs but couldn't figure out if this is possible. -tia

    Read the article

  • mysql partitioning

    - by Yang
    just want to verify that database partition is implemented only at the database level, when we query a partitioned table, we still do our normal query, nothing special with our queries, the optimization is performed automatically when parsing the query, is that correct? e.g. we have a table called 'address' with a column called 'country_code' and 'city'. so if i want to get all the addresses in New York, US, normally i wound do something like this: select * from address where country_code = 'US' and city = 'New York' if now the table is partitioned by 'country_code', and i know that now the query will only be executed on the partition which contains country_code = US. My question is do I need to explicitly specify the partition to query in my sql statement? or i still use the previous statement and the db server will optimize it automatically? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Partitioning a table in mysql after creation

    - by erik
    I have a table with a bunch of data already in it. I know how to create a partitioned table or alter an already existing partitioned table, but can I add partitions to a table after it has been created, has data in it, without losing the data? The other option is to dump all the data, recreate the table with the partitions and then insert it all back it. Is that the only way? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Mysql partitioning: Partitions outside of date range is included

    - by Sturlum
    Hi, I have just tried to configure partitions based on date, but it seems that mysql still includes a partition with no relevant data. It will use the relevant partition but also include the oldest for some reason. Am I doing it wrong? The version is 5.1.44 (MyISAM) I first added a few partitions based on "day", which is of type "date" ALTER TABLE ptest PARTITION BY RANGE(TO_DAYS(day)) ( PARTITION p1 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DAYS('2009-08-01')), PARTITION p2 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DAYS('2009-11-01')), PARTITION p3 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DAYS('2010-02-01')), PARTITION p4 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DAYS('2010-05-01')) ); After a query, I find that it uses the "old" partition, that should not contain any relevant data. mysql> explain partitions select * from ptest where day between '2010-03-11' and '2010-03-12'; +----+-------------+------------+------------+-------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | id | select_type | table | partitions | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+------------+------------+-------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | ptest | p1,p4 | range | day | day | 3 | NULL | 79 | Using where | +----+-------------+------------+------------+-------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ When I select a single day, it works: mysql> explain partitions select * from ptest where day = '2010-03-11'; +----+-------------+------------+------------+------+---------------+------+---------+-------+------+-------+ | id | select_type | table | partitions | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+------------+------------+------+---------------+------+---------+-------+------+-------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | ptest | p4 | ref | day | day | 3 | const | 39 | | +----+-------------+------------+------------+------+---------------+------+---------+-------+------+-------+

    Read the article

  • Partitioning data set in r based on multiple classes of observations

    - by Danny
    I'm trying to partition a data set that I have in R, 2/3 for training and 1/3 for testing. I have one classification variable, and seven numerical variables. Each observation is classified as either A, B, C, or D. For simplicity's sake, let's say that the classification variable, cl, is A for the first 100 observations, B for observations 101 to 200, C till 300, and D till 400. I'm trying to get a partition that has 2/3 of the observations for each of A, B, C, and D (as opposed to simply getting 2/3 of the observations for the entire data set since it will likely not have equal amounts of each classification). When I try to sample from a subset of the data, such as sample(subset(data, cl=='A')), the columns are reordered instead of the rows. To summarize, my goal is to have 67 random observations from each of A, B, C, and D as my training data, and store the remaining 33 observations for each of A, B, C, and D as testing data. I have found a very similar question to mine, but it did not factor in multiple variables. I feel silly asking this question because it seems so simple, but I'm stumped. Also, this is my first question on this site, so I apologize in advance for any faux pas on my part.

    Read the article

  • Why database partitioning didn't work? Extract from thedailywtf.com

    - by questzen
    Original link. http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Certified-DBA.aspx. Article summary: The DBA suggests an approach involving rigorous partitioning, 10 partitions per disk (3 actual disks and 3 raid). The stats show that the performance is non-optimal. Then the DBA suggests an alternative of 1 partition per disk (with more added disks). This also fails. The sys-admin then sets up a single disk, single partition and saves the day. The size of disks was not mentioned but given today,s typical disk sizes (of the order of 100 GB), the partitions ; would be huge, it surprises me that a single disk with all partitions outperformed. Initially I suspect that the data was segregated and hence faster reads. But how come the performance didn't degrade as time went by with all the inserts and updates happening? Saw this on reddit, but the explanation was by far spindle/platter centered. There was no mention in the article about this. Is there any other reason? I can only guess that the tables were using a incorrect hash distribution causing non-uniform allocation across disks (wrong partitioning); this would increase fetch times. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Could I have destroyed Partitioning-Scheme/Filesystem of HDDs with External Harddrive Case with builtin Raid-Controller?

    - by th3m3s
    I had just recently bought a Fantec QB-35US3R to have a nice box on my desk to make some backups to. Along with the HDD-Bay I had ordered some 4TB HDDs to let them run in Raid 5, which is handled by the hardware RAID controller of the Fantec HDD-Bay. The QB-35US3R arrived a few days before the hard drives, so I got impatient and had the idea to put three old 1TB disks in the Fantec device, just to test it... Long story short: I made a backup of the most important data on these three disks before they broke. I had set the configuration scheme to RAID 3 at the Fantec device. It seems, that the Fantec RAID controller has "somehow" destroyed the partitioning scheme or the file system, because when put into a HDD docking station, they get recognized by the OS (Ubuntu/Linux) but are not mountable anymore. I tried to recover the data from one HDD via gParted (parted), which ran some hours without success. Here I stopped, before trying other tools, cos I read that the longer a hard drive is running after a the partitioning got destroyed, the worse it gets. What could the HDD-Bay probably have done to my lovely hard drive disks? Is there some routine a RAID controller is executing, when it wants to create a RAID system? Like erasing the partition table (seems not plausible to me.) or writing some information to every hard drive in the RAID (seems more likely to me.)? Is there a chance to recover the data from these HDDs, or is the change a RAID controller makes so significant, that no software is of help?

    Read the article

  • How to use lists in equivalence partitioning?

    - by KhDonen
    I have read that equivalence partitioning can be used typically for intervals or lists, e.g. I assume it can be used for every set of inputs. Anyway if the requirement says that allowed colors are (RED,BLUE,BLACK, GREEN), I cannot treat them like a list, right? I mean, testing one of them would not be enough because developers most likely used some switch-case and thus it is not real "set" where one could represent also the others. So how it is meant with lists? Also what is not that clear to me, I do not think it is always possible to do the initial partioning and then design the test cases. What about checking two lines intersection: Y=MX+C. (two inputs) 1) The lines are paraller. M1=M1 but C1 must be different from C2. 2) Lines are intersecting. M1 must be different from M2. 3) Coincident. The are the same. How can I use partitioning here? THis is actually taken from a book and it says that these sets are eq.classes.

    Read the article

  • What is the reason partitioning is usually a step in installing multiple OS's?

    - by P.S.
    What is the reason partitioning is usually a step in installing multiple (2) operating systems on the same computer? Does an operating system have to have it's own partition to run or can it run in the same partition as another operating system? (i.e. -can two of the same flavor run in the same partition but if you have one Linux and one windows it needs to be partitioned?) Is it necessary to make disk partitions to run multiple operating systems?

    Read the article

  • Database Partitioning and Multiple Data Source Considerations

    - by Jeffrey McDaniel
    With the release of P6 Reporting Database 3.0 partitioning was added as a feature to help with performance and data management.  Careful investigation of requirements should be conducting prior to installation to help improve overall performance throughout the lifecycle of the data warehouse, preventing future maintenance that would result in data loss. Before installation try to determine how many data sources and partitions will be required along with the ranges.  In P6 Reporting Database 3.0 any adjustments outside of defaults must be made in the scripts and changes will require new ETL runs for each data source.  Considerations: 1. Standard Edition or Enterprise Edition of Oracle Database.   If you aren't using Oracle Enterprise Edition Database; the partitioning feature is not available. Multiple Data sources are only supported on Enterprise Edition of Oracle   Database. 2. Number of Data source Ids for partitioning during configuration.   This setting will specify how many partitions will be allocated for tables containing data source information.  This setting requires some evaluation prior to installation as       there are repercussions if you don't estimate correctly.   For example, if you configured the software for only 2 data sources and the partition setting was set to 2, however along came a 3rd data source.  The necessary steps to  accommodate this change are as follows: a) By default, 3 partitions are configured in the Reporting Database scripts. Edit the create_star_tables_part.sql script located in <installation directory>\star\scripts   and search for partition.  You’ll see P1, P2, P3.  Add additional partitions and sub-partitions for P4 and so on. These will appear in several areas.  (See P6 Reporting Database 3.0 Installation and Configuration guide for more information on this and how to adjust partition ranges). b) Run starETL -r.  This will recreate each table with the new partition key.  The effect of this step is that all tables data will be lost except for history related tables.   c) Run starETL for each of the 3 data sources (with the data source # (starETL.bat "-s2" -as defined in P6 Reporting Database 3.0 Installation and Configuration guide) The best strategy for this setting is to overestimate based on possible growth.  If during implementation it is deemed that there are atleast 2 data sources with possibility for growth, it is a better idea to set this setting to 4 or 5, allowing room for the future and preventing a ‘start over’ scenario. 3. The Number of Partitions and the Number of Months per Partitions are not specific to multi-data source.  These settings work in accordance to a sub partition of larger tables with regard to time related data.  These settings are dataset specific for optimization.  The number of months per partition is self explanatory, optimally the smaller the partition, the better query performance so if the dataset has an extremely large number of spread/history records, a lower number of months is optimal.  Working in accordance with this setting is the number of partitions, this will determine how many "buckets" will be created per the number of months setting.  For example, if you kept the default for # of partitions of 3, and select 2 months for each partitions you would end up with: -1st partition, 2 months -2nd partition, 2 months -3rd partition, all the remaining records Therefore with records to this setting, it is important to analyze your source db spread ranges and history settings when determining the proper number of months per partition and number of partitions to optimize performance.  Also be aware the DBA will need to monitor when these partition ranges will fill up and when additional partitions will need to be added.  If you get to the final range partition and there are no additional range partitions all data will be included into the last partition. 

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to partition more than one way at a time in SQL Server?

    - by meeting_overload
    I'm considering various ways to partition my data in SQL Server. One approach I'm looking at is to partition a particular huge table into 8 partitions, then within each of these partitions to partition on a different partition column. Is this even possible in SQL Server, or am I limited to definining one parition column+function+scheme per table? I'm interested in the more general answer, but this strategy is one I'm considering for Distributed Partitioned View, where I'd partition the data under the first scheme using DPV to distribute the huge amount of data over 8 machines, and then on each machine partition that portion of the full table on another parition key in order to be able to drop (for example) sub-paritions as required.

    Read the article

  • Too many columns to index - use mySQL Partitions?

    - by Christopher Padfield
    We have an application with a table with 20+ columns that are all searchable. Building indexes for all these columns would make write queries very slow; and any really useful index would often have to be across multiple columns increasing the number of indexes needed. However, for 95% of these searches, only a small subset of those rows need to be searched upon, and quite a small number - say 50,000 rows. So, we have considered using mySQL Partition tables - having a column that is basically isActive which is what we divide the two partitions by. Most search queries would be run with isActive=1. Most queries would then be run against the small 50,000 row partition and be quick without other indexes. Only issue is the rows where isActive=1 is not fixed; i.e. it's not based on the date of the row or anything fixed like that; we will need to update isActive based on use of the data in that row. As I understand it that is no problem though; the data would just be moved from one partition to another during the UPDATE query. We do have a PK on id for the row though; and I am not sure if this is a problem; the manual seemed to suggest the partition had to be based on any primary keys. This would be a huge problem for us because the primary key ID has no basis on whether the row isActive.

    Read the article

  • What is a good partitioning design/scheme for a multi-boot *nix system?

    - by static
    I'm planning to install Debian on my server. I would like to design the partitioning scheme in such a way, that I could install one or more other *nix distributives on that. So, reading many articles I think this scheme could be a good one for the initial idea of multi-boot: /grub /swap /LVM VG1 (for OS1) -> /boot (LV1) / (LV2) /tmp (LV3) /var ... /var/log /home /LVM VG2 (for OS2) -> /boot / /tmp /var /var/log /home ... (other distros) /LVM VG0 (for data) -> /data (LV1) But I'm confused a little bit now: what should be the labels for these partitions (unique or not) and what should be the mounting points looking as (/home (OS1) mounted to /home as well as /home (OS2)...)?

    Read the article

  • Partitioning & Linux

    - by Zac
    Every tutorial on Linux-based partitioning schemes (or, just partitioning in general) will tell you that a PC can have either 4 primary partitions, or 3 primaries and 1 extended. They will all also tell you that Linux (in my case, Ubuntu) can be installed on either. It's also come to my attention that it is not too atypical for FHS directories, such as usr/, tmp/, etc/, home/ or var/ to be mounted separately on other partitions. Several questions I am unable to find the answers to, purely for my own edification: (1) By "PC", are we really talking about common PC disk types, like IDE or SATA? I guess I'm wondering why PC uses are limited to 4 primaries or 3 primaries + 1 extended (2) I'm choking on some basic OS concepts: it is said that a partition can be mounted by a file system or an OS. So I assume this means I can somehow instruct Ubuntu to mount to 1 partition, and then any part of, say, ReiserFS, to be mounted to another partition? How? (3)(a) What about creating swap partitions? Is there too much of a good thing with swap partitioning? If I have 4GB RAM over 320GB disk, what should my swap partition size be, and why? (3)(b) Are swap files the only way to create swap partitions? Wouldn't a Linux partitioning utility allow me to define a partition as being for virtual memory only? (4) Why are partitions limited to being "mounted" by just OSes and file systems? Why couldn't I write a program to take up its own, say, 512 MB partition, and then have it invoked or uses by an OS installed on another partition? Thanks for shedding any light here... not critical that I know this stuff, but it's got me thinking incessantly. And when I think incessantly, I...can't......sleep....

    Read the article

  • Unix Server Partitioning & Filesystem Layout

    - by user1717735
    There's a lot of contradictory information about Unix server partitioning out on the internet, so I need some advice on how to proceed. So far, on the servers I in our test environment I didn't really care about partitioning and I configured a single monolithic / plus a swap partition. This partitioning scheme doesn't seem like a good idea for our production servers. I have found a good starting point here, but it seems very vague on the details. Basically I have a server on which I will be running a basic LAMP stack (Apache, PHP, and MySQL). It will have to handle file uploads (up to 2GB). The system has a 2TB RAID 1 array. I plan to set : / 100GB /var 1000GB (apache files and mysql files will be here), /tmp 800GB (handles the php tmp file) /home 96GB swap 4GB Does this sound sane, or am I over-complicating things?

    Read the article

  • Windows 8.1 wants to format a USB stick with an unusual but valid GPT partitioning scheme, why?

    - by DonGar
    I have a USB stick formatted with GPT partitions. Some of the partitions are ext2, some are ext4, some are custom and funky. However, there is also a standard EFI partition, and a standard vfat partition. In Windows 7, both the EFI partition and the standard VFAT partition are visible and mount normally. But Windows 8.1 prompts to reformat the drive when it's inserted. I'm not surprised if Win 8 hides the EFI partition, but I didn't expect it to prompt for reformatting. I want to leave existing partitions alone, but have a VFAT partition that Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 will mount and display normally. Exactly how does Win 8 decide if a device needs to be formatted?

    Read the article

  • Error after installing Ubuntu 12.04 using Wubi

    - by KJ50
    After using Windows Ubuntu Installer from within Windows, I am prompted to restart, so I follow the directions. When I try to start Ubuntu after restarting, the desktop background appears, but then a loading bar with this title appears. Verifying the installation configuration... While this is loading, an error window pops up that says No root file system is defined Please correct this from the partitioning menu There is only an 'Ok' button available to click, and if I click that the same error window appears. I do not know how to get to the "partitioning menu" from this state, so the only option I have is to shut down my computer. What can I do so that Ubuntu finds a "root file system"? Can I diagnose this problem via Windows? Does anyone have any insight? FYI - I am using a new ultrabook with 6GB RAM, Intel i7 3rd gen processor, and no CD/DVD drive.

    Read the article

  • Using a subset of GetHashCode() to increase AzureTable performance through partitioning

    - by makerofthings7
    Generally speaking, Azure Table IO performance improves as more partitions are used (with some tradeoffs in continuation tokens and batch updates I won't go into). Since the partition key is always a string I am considering using a "natural" load balancing technique based on a subset of the GetHashCode() of the partition key, and appending this subset to the partition key itself. This will allow all direct PK/RK queries to be computed with little overhead and with ease. Batch updates may just need an intermediate to group similar PKs together prior to submission. Question: Should I use GetHashCode() to compute the partition key? Is a better function available? If I use GetHashCode() does it matter which character I use for my PK? Is there an abstraction for Azure Table and Blob storage that does this for me already?

    Read the article

  • Demantra Partitioning and the First PK Column

    - by user702295
      We have found that it is necessary in Demantra to have an index that matches the partition key, although it does not have to be the PK.  It is ok   to create a new index instead of changing the PK.   For example, if my PK on SALES_DATA is (ITEM_ID, LOCATION_ID, SALES_DATE) and I decide partition by SALES_DATE, then I should add an index starting   with the partition key like this: (SALES_DATE, ITEM_ID, LOCATION_ID).   * Note that the first column of the new index matches the partition key.   It might also be helpful to create a 2nd index with the other PK columns reversed (SALES_DATE, LOCATION_ID, ITEM_ID). Again, the first column   matches the partition key.

    Read the article

  • Partitioning with preseed help

    - by kostasp
    I have a server that has 4 hds inside all in stadalone configurations (no hardware raid). I want using preseed to create a "regular" partition on disk1 on which i ll install ubuntu and create a raid 0 array with the remainning three disks. Is this possible? Can i use partman-auto/method twice inside the preseed file once for regular and once for raid? I need to use this for unattended provisioning so i need to set my disks inside the preseed file. Thanking you all in advance for your time. Costas

    Read the article

  • partitioning ssd +hdd

    - by ALdaperan
    I recently bought an ssd drive 128 gb and i would like yo have your suggestions on partitiong and installing ubuntu 12.10 on it. First of all my drives are : HDD 640 Gb SSD Samsung 830 series 128 Gb Whats the best partitiong for theese drives ? 128 Gb is sure enormous amount of space only for / (root) . Is it a good choice if i make 2 partitions on ssd (20 Gb / and 100 /home) and leave hdd as backub drive for my data (files,movies,music etc) ? In this case what mount point must have hdd ? Can you suggest me the best partitiong for my drives ?

    Read the article

  • /dev/sda2 contains a filesystem with error after partitioning

    - by Private
    I just wanted to create a separate home partition on my Ubuntu 12.10 system. I booted the liveDVD, resized the sda2 partition (28gb of data resized to 30gb based on MiB [originally on a 100gb partition]) and made a new ext4 partition for the home folder. The drive is an SSD drive. I had changed the settings (noatime etc.) for SSD succesfully a week ago. On reboot I get the following error: /dev/sda2 contains a filesystem with errors Inode 74669 has an invalid extent node (blk 6881289) fsd / [953] terminated with status 4 What would you suggest me to do? If I can avoid a clean install that would save me a lot of time (I had just done all the config). I was following this HOWTO, but I did not get to changing any of the files or configs other than those with gparted. I have a (two-week old) SSD Samsung drive which is functioning just fine (other specs see bottom of this question). Other specs: 64bit 12.10, i7, 8gb ram, nvidia.

    Read the article

  • Partitioning set into subsets with respect to equality of sum among subsets

    - by Al.Net
    let say i have {3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1,5,2,7} set of numbers, I need to split the numbers such that sum of subset1 should be equal to sum of subset2 {3,2,7} {1,1,2,1,5,2}. First we should identify whether we can split number(one way might be dividable by 2 without any remainder) and if we can, we should write our algorithm two create s1 and s2 out of s. How to proceed with this approach? I read partition problem in wiki and even in some articles but i am not able to get anything. Can someone help me to find the right algorithm and its explanation in simple English?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >