I want to create tablespace in ASM in Oracle rac db create tablespace <tablespacexxx> DATAFILE '+data';. data is one disk storage. I saw there are multiple disk groups when executing select * from V$ASM_DISKGROUP;
There is one disk group called Data and another group called Reco. The voting_files column for the two groups is different. voting_files for Data is set to y, and voting_files for Reco is set no n. I am wondering what are the differences between the two, and can I use either one to create tablespaces?
Use +DATA for your datafiles. +RECO or +FRA should be for the fast recovery area, online redo logs, voting files, and control files.
The Fast Recovery Area is Oracle-managed disk space that provides a
centralized disk location for backup and recovery files.
https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/19/haovw/oracle-database-configuration-best-practices.html#GUID-DB511B6A-D220-4556-B31B-18E3D310BA61
https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/19/ostmg/create-diskgroups.html#GUID-CACF13FD-1CEF-4A2B-BF17-DB4CF0E1800C
According to the disk group names, DATA is supposed to be contain user data, and RECO is to store the recovery logs. It more like an agreement among the developers and DBAs.
So, your new tablespace needs to placed at DATA.
Voting disks manage information about RAC node membership. You should not use it store any user data.
Related
I'm running Oracle 11g XE on Debian Linux and I really need to know when "user data" is come close to 11 Gb.
The maximum amount of user data in an Oracle Database XE database cannot exceed 11 gigabytes. If the user data grows beyond this limit, then an ORA-12592 error will appear.
(c) docs.oracle.com
Few questions here:
what is user data exactly?
Which tablespaces is count as userdata?
Does system tablespaces like sysaux counts as user data?
Does separate files like archived redo logs counts as userdata?
Thank for help, guys, I'm really confused.
User data is the persistent data your application creates and uses, as distinct from the metadata the database generates itself (such as the data dictionary).
The tablespaces you need to monitor are USERS and any other tablespace you have created. The tablespaces SYS and SYSAUX are reserved for the database's own data and so don't count; TEMP and UNDO (or whatever else you call your temporary and rollback tablespaces) don't count either.
Redo logs and other files are external to the database and so don't count either.
Im Using Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard
Im Running PostgreSQL 9.0.1, compiled by Visual C++ build 1500, 32-bit
I got C:/ and D:/ Drive
C:/ --> 6.7GB free space (almost full and my server performance running low)
D:/ --> 141GB free space
Currently my PostgreSQL Data stored at C:/ Now,I want to route or add path to D:/ without migrate the data from C:/ to D:/ because now my PostgreSQL Data Stored around 148 GB. It Heavy and Massive Stored.
If success, I should still be able to do a query like SELECT * From table_bla_bla and it will return result from both drives?
Please do not suggest me to change PostgreSQL to other DB or whatsoever.
Because Im running 39,763 Device GPS Meter that send the data to my Server.
I have to take care this server because my expert already past-away.
You need to use tablespaces.
Create the tablespace, for example CREATE TABLESPACE second_drive LOCATION 'D:/postgresdata/' (see this other answer if you get permission denied errors)
ALTER TABLE table_bla_bla SET tablespace second_drive
Tablespaces allow you to decide which tables go on which drives and that can help speed up performance by ensuring you control where reads and writes go, but it also helps with space.
Postgres places individual tables in TABLESPACEs (which relate to a single disk), which is enough if you have multiple tables and you can achieve what you need by moving some tables to the other disk.
On the other hand, if you have a large table that you need to split over multiple disks, you need to use Postgres's Horizontal Partitioning capability.
This builds on tablespaces by allowing you to create a master table table_bla_bla which is actually just a facade on top of two or more tables which actually hold the data. These data tables can then be put on different tablesspaces effectively splitting your data over disks.
For this you would:
Rename your current table_bla_bla to something like
table_bla_bla_c
Create a new table_bla_bla master table.
Alter table_bla_bla_c to mark that it inherits from
table_bla_bla
Create a new table_bla_bla_d table that inherits from table_bla_bla and specify the tablespace as the D drive.
Apply partitioning triggers and check constraints as per the partitioning documentation
Once this is in place, you can arrange it so that any inserts into table_bla_bla cause new records to be created on the D drive. Selects on table_bla_bla will read from both disks.
Our Production database is on SQL Server 2008 R2. One of our tables, Document_Details, stores documents that users upload via our application (VB). They are stored in varbinary(max) format. There are over 20k files in pdf format and many of these are large in size (some are 50mb each). So overall this table is 90GB. We then ran an exe that compressed these pdf files down to 10GB.
However here lies the problem - the table is still 90GB in size. The unalloacted space hasn't been released. How do I unallocate this space so that the table is 10GB?
I tried moving the table to a new filegroup and then back to original filegroup but in either case it didn't release any space.
I also tried rebuilding the index on the table but that didn't work either.
What did work (but I heard it isn't recommended) was - change the recovery type from Simple, Shrink the filegroup, set recovery to Full.
Could I move this table to a new filegroup and then shrink that filegroup (i.e. just the Document_Details table)? I know the shrink command affects performance but if it's just 1 table would it still be a problem? Or is there anything else I can try?
Thanks.
Moving a table to a filegroup has one problem: By default the TEXTIMAGE data (the blobs) are not moved! A table's rows can reside on one filegroup and the blobs and on another. This is a crazy defect in SQL Server. Maybe by rebuilding the table the blobs were simply not touched.
Use one of the well-known methods to move lob data as well. That would rebuild the lobs and shrink them.
I have an application that produce approximately 15000 rows int a table named ExampleLog for each Task. The task has a taskID, that is saved in a table named TaskTable, thus it's possible to retrieve data from the ExampleLog table to run some queries.
The problem is that the ExampleLog table is getting very big, since I run everyday at least 1 task. At the time being my ExampleLog table is over 60 GB.
I would like to compress the 15000 rows which belong to a TaskID, and compress them or just Zip them and then save the compressed data somewhere inside the database as Blob or as Filestream. But it is important for me to be able to query easily the compressed or zipped file and proccess some query in a efficient manner inside the compressed or zipped data. (I don't know, if it's possible or I may lost in term of performance)
PS: The compressed data should not be considered as backup data.
Did someone can recommend an good approach or technique to resolve this problem. My focus is on the speed and of the query running on the ExampleLog and the place taken on the disk.
I'm using SQL Server 2008 on Windows 7
Consider Read-Only Filegroups and Compression.
Using NTFS Compression with Read-Only User-defined Filegroups and Read-Only Databases
SQL Server supports NTFS compression of read-only
user-defined filegroups and read-only databases. You should consider
compressing read-only data in the following situations: You have a
large volume of static or historical data that must be available for
limited read-only access. You have limited disk space.
Also, you can try and estimate the gains from page compression applied to the log table using Data Compression Wizard.
The answer of Denis could not solve my Problem completely, however I will use it for some optimization inside the DB.
Regarding the problem of storing data in package/group, there are 2 solutions of my problem:
The first solution is the use of the Partitioned Table and Index Concepts.
For example, if a current month of data is primarily used for INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, and MERGE operations while previous months are used primarily for SELECT queries, managing this table may be easier if it is partitioned by month. This benefit can be especially true if regular maintenance operations on the table only have to target a subset of the data. If the table is not partitioned, these operations can consume lots of resources on an entire data set. With partitioning, maintenance operations, such as index rebuilds and defragmentations, can be performed on a single month of write-only data, for example, while the read-only data is still available for online access.
The second solution it to insert from the code (C# in my case) a List or Dictionary of row from a Task, then save them inside a FILESTREAM (SQL Server) on the DB server. Data will later by retrived by Id; the zip will be decompressed and data will be ready to use.
We have decided to use the second solution.
I recently perform a purging on my application table. total record of 1.1 millions with the disk space used 11.12GB.
I had deleted 860k records and remain 290k records, but why my space used only drop to 11.09GB?
I monitor the detail on report - disk usage - disk space used by data files - space used.
Is it that i need to perfrom shrink data file? This has been puzzle me long time.
For MS SQL Server, rebuild the clustered indexes.
You have only deleted rows: not reclaimed space.
DBCC DBREINDEX or ALTER INDEX ... WITH REBUILD depending on verison
(It's MS SQL because the disk space report is in SSMS)
You need to explicitly call some operation (specific to your database management system) that will shrink the data file. The database engine doesn't shrink the file when you delete records, that's for optimization purposes - shrinking is time-consuming.
I think this is like with mail folders in Thunderbird: If you delete something, it's just marked as deleted, but to get higher performance, the space isn't freed. So most of your 11.09 GB will now contain either your old data or 0's. Shrink data file will "compress" (or "clean") this by creating a new file that'll only contain the actual data that is left.
Probably you need to shrink the table. I know that SQL server doesn't do it by default for you, I would guess this is for reasons of performance, maybe other DBs are the same.