There are only 2 things I can think of:
1) Create new table, do insert /* +APPEND */ into new_tab select /*+ parallel(16) */ from old_table;
2) Use DBMS_REDEFINITION
Personally, I would use the first method, if possible.
On 7/30/20 6:16 PM, Ram Raman wrote:
We have a 1.4B row table that is hash partitioned by a key (ID). The key is increasing monotonically and seems to be coming from a sequence. The loads happen nightly and those are the only time the table is inserted to; during the day time only SELECTs run against the table.
The table has 4 indexes on it, including one on the ID column. None of the indexes are partitioned (!)
Unique Index on ID column. Two other single column indexes on 2 number columns and one single column index on a date column.
Queries that run in the day time typically access past several months of data from the table by the ID key mostly. It is accessed via other columns as well, but that is less than 20% of the time. There are about 10M rows per month and we have 32 hash partitions. No INSERTS in the day time.
Since the load is happening nightly and there are only queries in the day time, I am considering testing out range partitioning the table rather than hash partitioning. It seems hash partitioning is recommended for keys based on sequences to avoid index contention during inserts. However, with the hash based approach the queries are scanning all partitions having to go through all 1.4B rows for a few months of records. If I go with range partitioning (one per month) on the ID key and if the queries access past few months of data only, I feel we can see a substantial performance improvement with queries only having to visit a fraction of the partitions and rows.
I am also planning on creating a locally partitioned index on the ID column and also partitioned indexes on the other 3 columns as well. Not sure if it will increase the load time. One option for the indexes is that the locally partitioned index will have the new partition created as needed and the remaining 3 indexes dropped and rebuilt nightly. Will this be faster than the index getting updated during the daily loads?
Can the listers share their thoughts on moving to range partition and indexes during load.