显示标签为“partitions”的博文。显示所有博文
显示标签为“partitions”的博文。显示所有博文

2012年3月22日星期四

Discussion about dynamic creation of partitions in AS2005

I have searched around and found very little about dynamically creating (and processesing) partitions in AS2005.

In AS2000 it is actually quite easy to manage partitions dynamically using a metadata table and DSO, but i had hoped that they came a little further in AS2005. Basically it's all about dynamically creating a partition for each month of a year or just partitioning over years. Does anyone have some good input about how to do it in AS2005 ?

Furthermore does someone have a comment on which prefferable option to choose (or maybe a completely other way) concerning partitions.

Option 1:

Partition "FACT_SALES_2005" points to a view called "v_FACT_SALES_2005" that is a "Select col1,col2 from FACT_SALES where period_year = 2005". The FACT_SALES table has a clustered index on period_year.

This way it's easy to manage views using a stored_procedure (create new view when we enter a new month etc.) and all the data resides in one single table which eases the ETL (in my opinion)

Option 2:

Partition "FACT_SALES_2005" points to a table called "FACT_SALES_2005".

This way it connects directly to the table, which someway is ok when it's partitioned in years, but what if you want to partition in months or weeks (52 weeks a year for 5 years of data). Then it becomes hard to manage.

Option 3:

Use partitioned tables and somehow point to a specific partition in the partitioned table from AS2005.

This i havent tried. But how will this perform. If you have a partitioned table that is partitioned in months, how do you reffer to let's say April 2006 in that partitioned table (FACT_SALES) from AS2005. And how about setting the Slice value of that partition....

Hi there,

i've had the same Problem and written a Assembly in .Net. This Assembly do all the things you can do from the GUI.

So i can process, create, ... Partitions from a stored Procedure in SQL. It works very nice. If you have detail Questions, aske me

Kind Regards

Andy L?wen

|||

You might take a look at:
http://www.codeplex.com/ASStoredProcedures/Wiki/View.aspx?title=Partition

That function isn't in the latest release, so you'll have to download the source code and compile it yourself from:
http://www.codeplex.com/ASStoredProcedures/SourceControl/ListDownloadableCommits.aspx

|||

It is definitely worth having a look at the code that furmangg points to. You should be able to use this "out of the box" or if not it will give you a good starting point.

There is one variation that is probably the easiest to manage which is similar to option 1. And that is to have all your data in a single table and then use a query as the data source for the partition to only select the data for a specific period. (essentially storing the view definition in the partition rather than creating a separate view object in the relational database)

And just a quick note on option 3. When you have a partitioned table it appears to all the other applications as if it is a single table, the data is partitioned based on specific data values, so selecting data from a particular partition is simply a matter of using a where clause that matches the partitioning scheme.

|||

Nice, i'll have a look at it.

I just think it's funny the Microsoft hasn't put any more attention into partitioning setup/handling since it's the most obvious thing to use when working with large cubes, which again is what SQL Server 2005 is profiling itself to handle very well.

sql

2012年3月8日星期四

Disaster Recovery

Yikes! I lost my autoloader bakcup device along with my SQL2K Server. I reinstalled Win2k and now can see my RAID partitions where I had SQL server installed, along with all of the files. Since my tape backup is dead, I cannot simply restore from media. I'd like to reinstall SQL Server and then somehow grab the files on the partition and restore all of the data back to where things were. Is this even possible? If so, could someone help me out? I am worried by reading this list that my primary application (Sharepoint) will not be able to be restored because of security issues. Any ideas on that?

I appreciate any help you can provide.

-DenYup I would say disaster...

not so sure about the recovery part....

No tapes?|||You will probably be able to get the databases back with sp_attach_db (see BOL), but since this is Sharepoint, it is anyone's guess as to whether the databases will talk to anyone. Try to keep all the same server names for Sharepoint servers, since Sharepoint does not react well to changes of that sort.|||If you need to used SP_ATTACHDB then ensure those are properly detached with SP_DETACHDB. Using the last good known backup of SQL database is the best and use RESTORE to restore the data which will create the database.

To know the contents of that backup file you can use RESTORE FILELISTONLY as suggested in books online.

KBA http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;%5BLN%5D;307775 about DR articles.
HTH

disaster recovery

my server has 3 partitions (c: , d: ,e:). my sql 2000 is
in d: and my win 2K is in c:. my c drive crashed and i
would like to recover my sql database in d: after i
reinstall my win 2K in c:. is that possible?Hi Bobby.
If SQL Server managed to shot down successfully, it would have checkpointed
the databases & you might be able to re-attach the .mdb files after
re-installing Windows / SQL Server. To attach a db, you can either use the
sp_attach_db stored proc or the SQL Enterprise Manager has a menu option to
do it - right click on the "databases" node, select "All Tasks" then "Attach
Database" & follow the prompts..
Do you have a backup of the database? If so, this is likely the better
option if the system crashed before you lost it.
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"bobby" <bllua@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:09e601c37f3f$3ea1bc80$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> my server has 3 partitions (c: , d: ,e:). my sql 2000 is
> in d: and my win 2K is in c:. my c drive crashed and i
> would like to recover my sql database in d: after i
> reinstall my win 2K in c:. is that possible?|||"Greg Linwood" <g_linwood@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eQepu%230fDHA.944@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi Bobby.
> If SQL Server managed to shot down successfully, it would have
checkpointed
> the databases & you might be able to re-attach the .mdb files after
> re-installing Windows / SQL Server. To attach a db, you can either use the
> sp_attach_db stored proc or the SQL Enterprise Manager has a menu option
to
> do it - right click on the "databases" node, select "All Tasks" then
"Attach
> Database" & follow the prompts..
> Do you have a backup of the database? If so, this is likely the better
> option if the system crashed before you lost it.
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
Also, if you have a backup of your Master database you would not have to
re-attach the db files
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/2003

2012年3月7日星期三

Disadvantages in using cube partitions

Hello,
Could anyone tell me if there are any disadvantages in using partitions
in cubes ?
Thanks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
1) they are an Enterprise Edition feature, thus they involve additional
upfront costs.
2) they are more difficult to maintain -- see the SSAS Operations Guide at:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../anservog.mspx
You will see that there are lots of interesting "gotchas" if you don't
maintain the data slice, etc. So they involve more administrative overhead.
However, personally I feel that their benefits more than out-weigh the
costs. See the SSAS Performance Guide for additional information on the
benefits:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../ansvcspg.mspx
There is also an excellent chapter on the importance of partitioning in the
SQL Server 2000 Resource Kit.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"anonymous red" <anonymousrd@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OCj6zjDuEHA.3320@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> Could anyone tell me if there are any disadvantages in using partitions
> in cubes ?
> Thanks
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||In fact I have a cube of size 100 MB with about 8 dimensions that
contains data for 24 months. There are only isolated reports that do not
use the whole 24 months data altogether. In fact, the time taken for the
processing of the cube or the complexity of development does not matter
much for my case: the main focus is access time on reports. What I would
like to know is that how I can have an idea of how much the majority of
my reports (which are based on the 24 months altogether) will suffer if
I start managing partitions in my cube based on the time dimension.
Basically, how significant is the overhead for a query consuming data
across all the members of a dimension when the cube bears N partitions
based on that dimension itself as compared to a single partition or to
how many number of partitions per MB of a cube does this overhead become
an issue.
I would be most grateful if you could provide me with some information
pertaining to the above issues.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||100MB is so small that I doubt if you will see any real advantage or
disadvantage of partitioning. If it was 100GB then we'd have a worthwhile
discussion, but 100MB is just too small to see anything.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"anonymous red" <anonymousrd@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O$%23$nbpuEHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> In fact I have a cube of size 100 MB with about 8 dimensions that
> contains data for 24 months. There are only isolated reports that do not
> use the whole 24 months data altogether. In fact, the time taken for the
> processing of the cube or the complexity of development does not matter
> much for my case: the main focus is access time on reports. What I would
> like to know is that how I can have an idea of how much the majority of
> my reports (which are based on the 24 months altogether) will suffer if
> I start managing partitions in my cube based on the time dimension.
> Basically, how significant is the overhead for a query consuming data
> across all the members of a dimension when the cube bears N partitions
> based on that dimension itself as compared to a single partition or to
> how many number of partitions per MB of a cube does this overhead become
> an issue.
>
> I would be most grateful if you could provide me with some information
> pertaining to the above issues.
>
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

Disadvantages in using cube partitions

Hello,
Could anyone tell me if there are any disadvantages in using partitions
in cubes ?
Thanks
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!1) they are an Enterprise Edition feature, thus they involve additional
upfront costs.
2) they are more difficult to maintain -- see the SSAS Operations Guide at:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/anservog.mspx
You will see that there are lots of interesting "gotchas" if you don't
maintain the data slice, etc. So they involve more administrative overhead.
However, personally I feel that their benefits more than out-weigh the
costs. See the SSAS Performance Guide for additional information on the
benefits:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/ansvcspg.mspx
There is also an excellent chapter on the importance of partitioning in the
SQL Server 2000 Resource Kit.
--
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"anonymous red" <anonymousrd@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OCj6zjDuEHA.3320@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> Could anyone tell me if there are any disadvantages in using partitions
> in cubes ?
> Thanks
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||In fact I have a cube of size 100 MB with about 8 dimensions that
contains data for 24 months. There are only isolated reports that do not
use the whole 24 months data altogether. In fact, the time taken for the
processing of the cube or the complexity of development does not matter
much for my case: the main focus is access time on reports. What I would
like to know is that how I can have an idea of how much the majority of
my reports (which are based on the 24 months altogether) will suffer if
I start managing partitions in my cube based on the time dimension.
Basically, how significant is the overhead for a query consuming data
across all the members of a dimension when the cube bears N partitions
based on that dimension itself as compared to a single partition or to
how many number of partitions per MB of a cube does this overhead become
an issue.
I would be most grateful if you could provide me with some information
pertaining to the above issues.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||100MB is so small that I doubt if you will see any real advantage or
disadvantage of partitioning. If it was 100GB then we'd have a worthwhile
discussion, but 100MB is just too small to see anything.
--
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"anonymous red" <anonymousrd@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O$%23$nbpuEHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> In fact I have a cube of size 100 MB with about 8 dimensions that
> contains data for 24 months. There are only isolated reports that do not
> use the whole 24 months data altogether. In fact, the time taken for the
> processing of the cube or the complexity of development does not matter
> much for my case: the main focus is access time on reports. What I would
> like to know is that how I can have an idea of how much the majority of
> my reports (which are based on the 24 months altogether) will suffer if
> I start managing partitions in my cube based on the time dimension.
> Basically, how significant is the overhead for a query consuming data
> across all the members of a dimension when the cube bears N partitions
> based on that dimension itself as compared to a single partition or to
> how many number of partitions per MB of a cube does this overhead become
> an issue.
>
> I would be most grateful if you could provide me with some information
> pertaining to the above issues.
>
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!