Re: Partitions expanding above the HWM

If you use tablespace (ASSM), you can shrink segment (each partition) http://www.oracle.com/technology/pub/articles/10gdba/week15_10gdba.html

ALTER TABLE [TABLE_NAME] ENABLE ROW MOVEMENT; ALTER TABLE [TABLE_NAME] MODIFY PARTITION [PARTITION_NAME] SHRINK SPACE COMPACT; -- shrink segment, but no reduce HWM ALTER TABLE [TABLE_NAME] MODIFY PARTITION [PARTITION_NAME] SHRINK SPACE; -- reduce HWM

This case may occur, if you have many insert sessions(and have session to delete HIGH values).
But if 640 GB and then shrunk to 17 GB

How about block_size in this tablespace? -- I have grew up like this on big block_size(32K)

I have some question - How about delete data process? If you delete old day ... you may point to make table partition by RANGE (and then truncate old day)

Good Luck
Surachart Opun
http://surachartopun.com

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Thomas Roach <troach_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> 4 node RAC - 10.2.0.4
> Linux x86_64 RHEL 5.3
>
> Tablespace
> ASSM on the Tablespaces (but the table has PCTFREE of 10 and PCTUSED of 0
> "which should be ignored because of ASSM."
>
> Reporting Table
> Partitioned by hash into 16 partitions.
> Degree of parallel is 1.
> PCTUSED 0
> PCTFREE 10
>
> Staging Table
> Partitioned by server name (7 partitions)
> Parallelization is enabled
>
> I am having an issue with a table that is just using way too much disk
> space. As of today, it was using 640GB. I shrunk it down to about 17GB by
> using the move partition command with update indexes. As data is inserted,
> it appears to be
>
> I initially thought I had it when I saw PCTUSED 0, but then I found the
> tablespace was ASSM, so this value "should" be ignored. I found the package
> that loads this table from a staging table.
>
> What happens is this.
>
> "INSERT INTO table SELECT * FROM staging_table"
>
> THEN
>
> "DELETE FROM table WHERE EXISTS"
>
> So, I set up a little test case, and I can't seem to replicate the data.
> This is not doing anything with APPEND in this package that does the ETL. I
> tested with parallel dml enabled at the session level and that yielded no
> results. Does anyone have any ideas what I might be missing? Could this be a
> bug with ASSM? Any help would greatly be appreciated as I have banged my
> head against the monitor all day (not literally).
>
> Thanks!
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l