How can I drop a table in oracle, but I want to use a where condition in the query; for example:
drop table employees where employee_id='100';
Is this possible or not?
You're not looking to DROP the table; dropping the table removes the entire table and all data therein.
It appears as though you want to remove some rows from the table. If this is the case you should use the DELETE statement:
delete from employees where employee_id = 100;
It might be worth investigating some basic functionality or taking a course before continuing.
Incidentally, 100 is a number. Using ' implies that it's a string. If the datatype of the column EMPLOYEE_ID is a number you don't need to quote it.
If you need to drop a table there is no need of checking some conditions.
If you need to specify where clause you are probably looking for deleting some rows. Better use delete.
Using condition to check for dropping a table is a new thing and i am gonna try it now.
Related
Is there an efficient way to update rows of a table that has no indexes and no partitions (and ~50millions rows)?
I have a date field LOAD_DTTM and values of this field for rows that require update (around 2000 distinct dates).
WIll update be faster if i specify a date in a WHERE clause along with the UNIQUE_ID of a row?
If you want to update all, or a large number, of the rows then the quickest way is:
create table my_table_copy as
select ... -- all the columns, updating values as required
from my_table;
drop table my_table;
rename my_table_copy to my_table;
If your table had any indexes, constraints or triggers you would now need to re-add them - but it seems you don't have that issue!
You could create a PL/SQL procedure that loops and update and commit the table every n row count -- Say every 20.000 rows. I do not advise to update the full table as it will create a lock for a looong time and expose you to data loss in case of external factors.
The answer is NO.
Even if you specify both conditions in your WHERE clause as you stated, it won't help you to avoid a full scan of your table.
Even if one of your criteria will uniquely identify the row, it still won't help.
There is a real example tested on Oracle 12C ver.2 similar to your case. No indexes, no partitions, nothing. Just plain table with 4 columns
I have a table with 18mn records.
I also have CUSTOMER_ID which is a UNIQUE identifier for a row.
I also have ORDER_DATE column there.
Even if I do the query that you mentioned
update hit set status = 1 where customer_id = 408518625844 and order_date = '09-DEC-19';
it won't help me to avoid a full table scan. See below Execution Plan. Therefore under conditions, you've specified, you will be always getting the slowest execution time possible. Full Table Scan on 50mn rows is actually the worst-case scenario.
And pay attention to that Cost, it is 26539 on 18mn rows.
So if you have 50mn rows we can easily expect much more Cost for your query
It is recommended to use TRUNCATE TABLE instead of DELETE. However, truncate table does not support the IF EXISTS clause. The alternative is to DROP TABLE and recreate but needs DDL. Is there a way to do TRUNCATE TABLE if only the table exists?
You have two options to achieve it:
SQL Procedure/Script
Using IF condition, checking if table exists, then only truncate your table.
With Plain SQL Statements
Use Create table with if not exists in combination with Truncate, this will ensure table always exists & your consecutive SQL statements don't error out & stop.
CREATE TABLE #tobetruncated IF NOT EXISTS
TRUNCATE TABLE #tobetruncated
NOTE: This is not specific to REDSHFIT, mostly applies to all DB unless it supports special functions (like one I know Oracle has TABLE_EXISTS_ACTION). Truncate is like a all or nothing operation, and thats what makes it much better in performance than DELETE.
I have a very large table people with 60M rows indexed on id, wish to populate a field newid for every record based on a look up table id_conversion (1M rows) which contains id and newid, indexed on id.
when I run
update people p set p.newid=(select l.newid from id_conversion l where l.id=p.id)
it runs for an hour or so and then I get an archive error ora 00257.
Any suggestions for either running update in sections or better sql command?
To avoid writing to Oracle's undo log if your update statement hits every single row of the table then you are likely better off running a create table as select query which will bypass all undo logs, which is likely the issue you're running into as it is logging the impact across 60 million rows. You can then drop the old table and rename the new table to that of the old table's name.
Something like:
create table new_people as
select l.newid,
p.col2,
p.col3,
p.col4,
p.col5
from people p
join id_conversion l
on p.id = l.id;
drop table people;
-- rebuild any constraints and indexes
-- from old people table to new people table
alter table new_people rename to people;
For reference, read some of the tips here: http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_efficient_update_sql_dml_tips.htm
If you are basically creating a new table and not just updating some of the rows of a table it will likely prove the faster method.
I doubt you will be able to get this to run in seconds. Your query, as written, needs to update all 60 million rows.
My first advice is to add an index on id_conversion(id, newid), to make the subquery more efficient. If that doesn't help, then doing the update in batches might be the best way to go.
I should add. Because you are updating all the rows, it might be faster to take the following approach:
Copy the data into a new table with the new values.
Truncate the original table.
Insert the new data into the old table.
Inserts are faster than updates.
In addition to the answers above, which probably will work better in this case, you should know the MERGE statement
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28286/statements_9016.htm
that is used for updating one table according to another table and is far faster then update according to a select statement
I have a CREATE TABLE query which can be done using two methods (create as select statement for thousands/million records):
First method:
create table as select some data minus (select data from other table)
OR
first i should create the table as
create table as select .....
and then
delete from ..where exist.
I guess the second method is better.For which query the cost is less?Why is minus query not as fast as the second method?
EDIT:
I forgot to mention that the create statement has join from two tables as well.
The minus is slow probably because it needs to sort the tables on disk in order to compare them.
Try to rewrite the first query with NOT EXISTS instead of MINUS, it should be faster and will generate less REDO and UNDO (as a_horse_with_no_name mentioned). Of course, make sure that all the fields involved in the WHERE clauses are indexed!
The second one will write lots of records to disk and then remove them. This will in 9 of 10 cases take way longer then filtering what you write in to begin with.
So if the first one actually isn't faster we need more information about the tables and statements involved.
I've researched and realize I have a unique situation.
First off, I am not allowed to post images yet to the board since I'm a new user, so see appropriate links below
I have multiple tables where a column (not always the identifier column) is sequentially numbered and shouldn't have any breaks in the numbering. My goal is to make sure this stays true.
Down and Dirty
We have an 'Event' table where we randomly select a percentage of the rows and insert the rows into table 'Results'. The "ID" column from the 'Results' is passed to a bunch of delete queries.
This more or less ensures that there are missing rows in several tables.
My problem:
Figuring out an sql query that will renumber the column I specify. I prefer to not drop the column.
Example delete query:
delete ItemVoid
from ItemTicket
join ItemVoid
on ItemTicket.item_ticket_id = itemvoid.item_ticket_id
where itemticket.ID in (select ID
from results)
Example Tables Before:
Example Tables After:
As you can see 2 rows were delete from both tables based on the ID column. So now I gotta figure out how to renumber the item_ticket_id and the item_void_id columns where the the higher number decreases to the missing value, and the next highest one decreases, etc. Problem #2, if the item_ticket_id changes in order to be sequential in ItemTickets, then
it has to update that change in ItemVoid's item_ticket_id.
I appreciate any advice you can give on this.
(answering an old question as it's the first search result when I was looking this up)
(MS T-SQL)
To resequence an ID column (not an Identity one) that has gaps,
can be performed using only a simple CTE with a row_number() to generate a new sequence.
The UPDATE works via the CTE 'virtual table' without any extra problems, actually updating the underlying original table.
Don't worry about the ID fields clashing during the update, if you wonder what happens when ID's are set that already exist, it
doesn't suffer that problem - the original sequence is changed to the new sequence in one go.
WITH NewSequence AS
(
SELECT
ID,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ID) as ID_New
FROM YourTable
)
UPDATE NewSequence SET ID = ID_New;
Since you are looking for advice on this, my advice is you need to redesign this as I see a big flaw in your design.
Instead of deleting the records and then going through the hassle of renumbering the remaining records, use a bit flag that will mark the records as Inactive. Then when you are querying the records, just include a WHERE clause to only include the records are that active:
SELECT *
FROM yourTable
WHERE Inactive = 0
Then you never have to worry about re-numbering the records. This also gives you the ability to go back and see the records that would have been deleted and you do not lose the history.
If you really want to delete the records and renumber them then you can perform this task the following way:
create a new table
Insert your original data into your new table using the new numbers
drop your old table
rename your new table with the corrected numbers
As you can see there would be a lot of steps involved in re-numbering the records. You are creating much more work this way when you could just perform an UPDATE of the bit flag.
You would change your DELETE query to something similar to this:
UPDATE ItemVoid
SET InActive = 1
FROM ItemVoid
JOIN ItemTicket
on ItemVoid.item_ticket_id = ItemTicket.item_ticket_id
WHERE ItemTicket.ID IN (select ID from results)
The bit flag is much easier and that would be the method that I would recommend.
The function that you are looking for is a window function. In standard SQL (SQL Server, MySQL), the function is row_number(). You use it as follows:
select row_number() over (partition by <col>)
from <table>
In order to use this in your case, you would delete the rows from the table, then use a with statement to recalculate the row numbers, and then assign them using an update. For transactional integrity, you might wrap the delete and update into a single transaction.
Oracle supports similar functionality, but the syntax is a bit different. Oracle calls these functions analytic functions and they support a richer set of operations on them.
I would strongly caution you from using cursors, since these have lousy performance. Of course, this will not work on an identity column, since such a column cannot be modified.