Re: sysmaster:sysptnhdr

March 22, 2018, 7:06 am

≫ Next: Re: Connection Refused (Solved)

≪ Previous: Re: sysmaster:sysptnhdr

$

0

0

Interesting question, and I'm just thinking out loud...
I don't think sysmaster:sysptnhdr is a real table. It should be a view over
the tablespace.tablespace. And the numbers of INSERTs/UPDATEs/DELETEs is
stored in the partition header.

If that's the case, they would be different depending on the "lag" of the
secondary servers.... Do you see the numbers changing? Are they completely
different in PRI and secondary servers?

Regards.

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:36 PM, BENJAMIN THOMPSON <
benjamin.thompson@skybettingandgaming.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Could anyone given an opinion on whether I should expect
> sysmaster:sysptnhdr
> to return the same values on all nodes in an Informix HDR/RSS cluster? I
> notice that the primary, HDR and RSS servers in a cluster all return
> different
> values for ninserts, nupdates, ndeletes even though only the primary can
> handle data changes.
>
> As far as I can tell, sysptnhdr is real table in sysmaster and not part of
> the
> SMI interface into shared memory and so faithful replication of this
> should be
> a reasonable expectation.
>
> Ben.
>
>
> ************************************************************
> *******************
>
>
>

--
Fernando Nunes
Portugal

http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
My email works... but I don't check it frequently...




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40919]

*******************************************************************************

---

Re: Connection Refused (Solved)

March 22, 2018, 7:08 am

≫ Next: Re: sysmaster:sysptnhdr

≪ Previous: Re: sysmaster:sysptnhdr

$

0

0

Hi,

Can you try telnet.

telnet hostfromsqlhost portfromsqlhost.

what's is response?

Petr

Dne 22.3.2018 v 14:51 Fernando Nunes napsal(a):
> That's the point... The bad thing in these mailing lists is that year from
> now, someone will have a similar issue, Google may find this thread, and
> the poor engineer may get the idea that changing a password may solve a 908
> error. It won't. However, (re)starting a database engine is a good
> possibility to solve a 908 :)
>
> Regards.
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:02 PM, GUSTAVO ECHENIQUE <
> gustavo.echenique@cemdo.com.ar> wrote:
>
>> Hello Fernando:
>>
>> The password that I changed was in the informix engine, and yes, I had to
>> restart it and everything worked fine.
>>
>>
>> ************************************************************
>> *******************
>>
>>
>>




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40920]

*******************************************************************************

Re: sysmaster:sysptnhdr

March 22, 2018, 7:21 am

≫ Next: Re: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch ne

≪ Previous: Re: Connection Refused (Solved)

$

0

0

I should think that they approximate one another not mirror one another. One
server might have to pull a page twice to update two rows while the other
might sometimes get them both in one.

j.

> On Mar 22, 2018, at 10:06 AM, Fernando Nunes <domusonline@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting question, and I'm just thinking out loud...
> I don't think sysmaster:sysptnhdr is a real table. It should be a view over
> the tablespace.tablespace. And the numbers of INSERTs/UPDATEs/DELETEs is
> stored in the partition header.
>
> If that's the case, they would be different depending on the "lag" of the
> secondary servers.... Do you see the numbers changing? Are they completely
> different in PRI and secondary servers?
>
> Regards.
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:36 PM, BENJAMIN THOMPSON <
> benjamin.thompson@skybettingandgaming.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could anyone given an opinion on whether I should expect
>> sysmaster:sysptnhdr
>> to return the same values on all nodes in an Informix HDR/RSS cluster? I
>> notice that the primary, HDR and RSS servers in a cluster all return
>> different
>> values for ninserts, nupdates, ndeletes even though only the primary can
>> handle data changes.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, sysptnhdr is real table in sysmaster and not part of
>> the
>> SMI interface into shared memory and so faithful replication of this
>> should be
>> a reasonable expectation.
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>>
>> ************************************************************
>> *******************
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Fernando Nunes
> Portugal
>
> http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
> My email works... but I don't check it frequently...
>
>
>

>
>




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40921]

*******************************************************************************

Re: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch ne

March 22, 2018, 7:25 am

≫ Next: RE: Connection Refused (Solved)

≪ Previous: Re: sysmaster:sysptnhdr

$

0

0

Thanks Thomas,
can i know how to set the lock mode from database end.
like im executing the SET LOCK MODE TO WAIT 5; from the dbaccess selecting the
database after restarting the server.
After executing it is showing that the "lockmode is set."

But the output of onstat -g sql shows

Sess SQL Current Iso Lock SQL ISAM F.E.
Id Stmt type Database Lvl Mode ERR ERR Vers Explain
90 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
89 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
88 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
87 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
86 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
85 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
84 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
83 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
82 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
81 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
80 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
79 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
78 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
77 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
76 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
75 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
74 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
73 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
72 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
71 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
70 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
69 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
36 - sysmaster LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
35 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
32 sysadmin DR Wait 5 0 0 - Off
31 sysadmin DR Wait 5 0 0 - Off
30 sysadmin DR Wait 5 0 0 - Off
29 sysadmin CR Not Wait 0 0 - Off

It was not set to database. May i know how to set properly and where to set.
Thanks for you.




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40922]

*******************************************************************************

RE: Connection Refused (Solved)

March 22, 2018, 7:29 am

≫ Next: Re: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch ne

≪ Previous: Re: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch ne

$

0

0

Firewall ports open?

-----Original Message-----
From: ids-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:ids-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Petr
Pomykacek
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 10:08 AM
To: ids@iiug.org
Subject: Re: Connection Refused (Solved) [40920]

Hi,

Can you try telnet.

telnet hostfromsqlhost portfromsqlhost.

what's is response?

Petr

Dne 22.3.2018 v 14:51 Fernando Nunes napsal(a):
> That's the point... The bad thing in these mailing lists is that year
> from now, someone will have a similar issue, Google may find this
> thread, and the poor engineer may get the idea that changing a
> password may solve a 908 error. It won't. However, (re)starting a
> database engine is a good possibility to solve a 908 :)
>
> Regards.
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:02 PM, GUSTAVO ECHENIQUE <
> gustavo.echenique@cemdo.com.ar> wrote:
>
>> Hello Fernando:
>>
>> The password that I changed was in the informix engine, and yes, I
>> had to restart it and everything worked fine.
>>
>>
>> ************************************************************
>> *******************
>>
>>
>>








*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40923]

*******************************************************************************

Re: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch ne

March 22, 2018, 7:43 am

≫ Next: Re: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch ne

≪ Previous: RE: Connection Refused (Solved)

$

0

0

It must be set in application.

On 22.03.2018 15:25, MUKESH TANUKU wrote:
> Thanks Thomas,
> can i know how to set the lock mode from database end.
> like im executing the SET LOCK MODE TO WAIT 5; from the dbaccess selecting
the
> database after restarting the server.
> After executing it is showing that the "lockmode is set."
>
> But the output of onstat -g sql shows
>
> Sess SQL Current Iso Lock SQL ISAM F.E.
> Id Stmt type Database Lvl Mode ERR ERR Vers Explain
> 90 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 89 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 88 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 87 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 86 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 85 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 84 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 83 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 82 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 81 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 80 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 79 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 78 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 77 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 76 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 75 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 74 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 73 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 72 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 71 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 70 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 69 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 36 - sysmaster LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 35 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
> 32 sysadmin DR Wait 5 0 0 - Off
> 31 sysadmin DR Wait 5 0 0 - Off
> 30 sysadmin DR Wait 5 0 0 - Off
> 29 sysadmin CR Not Wait 0 0 - Off
>
> It was not set to database. May i know how to set properly and where to set.
> Thanks for you.
>
>
>

>
>

--
Untitled Document

*Ivan Zaviš*

/System Administrator/

+381 21 68 98 608 | +381 69 846 99 08

*M&I Systems, Co. Group*

Bulevar vojvode Stepe 16, 21000 Novi Sad, Srbija

+381 21 68 98 602 | +381 21 68 98 604

info@mi-system.co.rs | www.mi-system.co.rs

Odricanje od odgovornosti:
Ovaj dokument namenjen je samo licima kojima je upucen i za pozivanje na
isti od stane bilo kog lica, neophodna je naknadna pismena potvrda
njegovog sadraja. Shodno tome, M&I Systems, Co. Novi Sad odrice svaku
odgovornost i ne prihvata bilo kakvu obavezu (ukljucujuci slucaj
nepanje) za posledice koje moe pretrpeti bilo koje lice zbog cinjenja
ili necinjenja na bazi takve informacije pre nego to takva lica prime
dodatnu pismenu potvrdu. Ukoliko ste grekom primili ovu elektronsku
poruku, unitite ili izbriite istu sa vaeg racunara. Svako umnoavanje,
irenje, kopiranje, obelodanjivanje, izmene, distribucija i/ili
objavljivanje ove elektronske poruke je strogo zabranjeno. Sadraj ove
elektronske poruke ne predstavlja nuno stavove M&I Systems, Co. Novi Sad




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40924]

*******************************************************************************

Re: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch ne

March 22, 2018, 10:38 am

≫ Next: Re: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch ne

≪ Previous: Re: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch ne

$

0

0

Thank you. I will set this from application end. mean while the table we have
found is LO_hdr_partn (this is not a transaction table)

I have executed one query to find the cause of lock, the output is
the session id 72 has IX lock on the sbspace1:LO_hdr_partn.
But what this is doing i cant able to find.




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40925]

*******************************************************************************

Re: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch ne

March 22, 2018, 12:53 pm

≫ Next: Upgrading Apache in OAT

≪ Previous: Re: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch ne

$

0

0

You should try this :

CREATE PROCEDURE PUBLIC.SYSDBOPEN()

SET LOCK MODE TO WAIT n; -- replace n by the number of seconds you want
the session to wait for the lock to be released

END PROCEDURE;

The new sessions when they try to connect will execute first this stored
procedure. However this applies to all new sessions from the time the
session connect until the first SET LOCK TO MODE TO WAIT or TO NOT WAIT
that it encounters in the application.

If your application did not use SET LOCK MODE TO WAIT ot SET LOCK MODE
TO WAIT n or SET LOCK MODE TO NOT WAIT, the default is SET LOCK MODE TO
NOT WAIT (meaning that the session does not wait for a lock if a lock is
on an object (row, index, etc) but your application will get an error
that you should trap in your application by testing the value of SQLCODE
right after the instruction or in a centralized way in a function that
traps the errors) . If your application is in the default mode , the
sysdbopen procedure will help you otherwise, you will have to modify you
application code.

Khaled Bentebal

Mobile: 33 (0) 6 07 78 41 97
Email: khaled.bentebal@consult-ix.fr

Le 22/03/2018 à 15:43, Ivan Zavis a écrit :
> It must be set in application.
>
> On 22.03.2018 15:25, MUKESH TANUKU wrote:
>> Thanks Thomas,
>> can i know how to set the lock mode from database end.
>> like im executing the SET LOCK MODE TO WAIT 5; from the dbaccess selecting
> the
>> database after restarting the server.
>> After executing it is showing that the "lockmode is set."
>>
>> But the output of onstat -g sql shows
>>
>> Sess SQL Current Iso Lock SQL ISAM F.E.
>> Id Stmt type Database Lvl Mode ERR ERR Vers Explain
>> 90 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 89 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 88 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 87 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 86 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 85 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 84 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 83 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 82 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 81 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 80 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 79 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 78 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 77 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 76 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 75 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 74 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 73 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 72 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 71 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 70 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 69 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 36 - sysmaster LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 35 - neura_charnock_prod_live LC Not Wait 0 0 9.28 Off
>> 32 sysadmin DR Wait 5 0 0 - Off
>> 31 sysadmin DR Wait 5 0 0 - Off
>> 30 sysadmin DR Wait 5 0 0 - Off
>> 29 sysadmin CR Not Wait 0 0 - Off
>>
>> It was not set to database. May i know how to set properly and where to
set.
>> Thanks for you.
>>
>>
>>
>

>>
>>




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40926]

*******************************************************************************

---

Upgrading Apache in OAT

March 22, 2018, 1:51 pm

≫ Next: Re: Upgrading Apache in OAT

≪ Previous: Re: Could not do a physical-order read to fetch ne

$

0

0

Has anyone attempted to upgrade the Apache that drives OAT? Even the latest
version of OAT comes with a vulnerability-riddled version of Apache I cannot
use. This is on Linux.

Thank you,

Trent




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40927]

*******************************************************************************

Re: Upgrading Apache in OAT

March 22, 2018, 2:22 pm

≫ Next: index compression on Version 12.10

≪ Previous: Upgrading Apache in OAT

$

0

0

> On Mar 22, 2018, at 14:51, TRENT COLWELL <tcolwell@tsys.com> wrote:
>
> Has anyone attempted to upgrade the Apache that drives OAT? Even the latest
> version of OAT comes with a vulnerability-riddled version of Apache I cannot
> use. This is on Linux.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Trent

Try downloading the OAT Community Edition available from the IBM Informix Free
Product Download page, then install in under an Apache version you configure
and control. We do that for a similar reason.

The link for the free downloads is currently
https://www-01.ibm.com/marketing/iwm/iwm/web/reg/download.do?source=swg-informixfpd&S_PKG=dl&lang=en_US&cp=UTF-8

Brad Patterson




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40928]

*******************************************************************************

index compression on Version 12.10

March 22, 2018, 8:03 pm

≫ Next: Re: sysmaster:sysptnhdr

≪ Previous: Re: Upgrading Apache in OAT

$

0

0

If i want to compress the detached index, Do the create index command lock the
whole user table ? it will affect the business.
thanks.




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40929]

*******************************************************************************

Re: sysmaster:sysptnhdr

March 23, 2018, 6:06 am

≫ Next: Re: sysmaster:sysptnhdr

≪ Previous: index compression on Version 12.10

$

0

0

Hi Fernando,

I am pretty sure the differences I am seeing are reasonably persistent and
definitely not caused by replication lag.

For now it is not that important provided I can trust the statistics on the
primary.

Thanks for replying, Ben.




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40930]

*******************************************************************************

Re: sysmaster:sysptnhdr

March 23, 2018, 6:42 am

≫ Next: partition limit

≪ Previous: Re: sysmaster:sysptnhdr

$

0

0

The partition headers are flushed at checkpoint time... that's when the
difference should become minimal...

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:06 PM, BENJAMIN THOMPSON <
benjamin.thompson@skybettingandgaming.com> wrote:

> Hi Fernando,
>
> I am pretty sure the differences I am seeing are reasonably persistent and
> definitely not caused by replication lag.
>
> For now it is not that important provided I can trust the statistics on the
> primary.
>
> Thanks for replying, Ben.
>
>
> ************************************************************
> *******************
>
>
>

--
Fernando Nunes
Portugal

http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
My email works... but I don't check it frequently...




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40931]

*******************************************************************************

partition limit

March 23, 2018, 8:41 am

≫ Next: Re: partition limit

≪ Previous: Re: sysmaster:sysptnhdr

$

0

0

Hi,

I have one server that my company use to give support to our clients.
The server is using 12.10.FC10 version and we are facing one problem with
partition limits.
As we use one partition for all database and index also, the problem is that
have dbspaces have less than 50% occupied but can´t use that space because the
number of partitions is higher than 1048445.
My question is, if I define bigger Page size (8K for example) the problem
still exists?
There is any easy way to alter fragments?
I have now more than one hundred databases on this server and I am looking for
one quick and some easy solution if it is possible.

Thanks for any help,

SP




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40932]

*******************************************************************************

Re: partition limit

March 23, 2018, 8:45 am

≫ Next: Re: partition limit

≪ Previous: partition limit

$

0

0

Create new dbspaces, use the -ef / -en options of onspaces (maybe with
5000) and move a few databases (smaller ones to make it quicker) to these
new dbspaces.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 3:41 PM, SERGIO PERES <sergio.peres@airc.pt> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have one server that my company use to give support to our clients.
> The server is using 12.10.FC10 version and we are facing one problem with
> partition limits.
> As we use one partition for all database and index also, the problem is
> that
> have dbspaces have less than 50% occupied but can´t use that space because
> the
> number of partitions is higher than 1048445.
> My question is, if I define bigger Page size (8K for example) the problem
> still exists?
> There is any easy way to alter fragments?
> I have now more than one hundred databases on this server and I am looking
> for
> one quick and some easy solution if it is possible.
>
> Thanks for any help,
>
> SP
>
>
> ************************************************************
> *******************
>
>
>

--
Fernando Nunes
Portugal

http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
My email works... but I don't check it frequently...




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40933]

*******************************************************************************

---

Re: partition limit

March 23, 2018, 9:07 am

≫ Next: RE: index compression on Version 12.10

≪ Previous: Re: partition limit

$

0

0

Hi Fernando,
There is any easy way to do it? Or do I need to export/import?
Thanks,

SP




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40934]

*******************************************************************************

RE: index compression on Version 12.10

March 23, 2018, 11:11 am

≫ Next: RE: index compression on Version 12.10

≪ Previous: Re: partition limit

$

0

0

Sorry, I thougth you was asking about index creation.
Manual says nothing about it.
But I think the engine will only require a share intent lock, not an exclusive
one during the whole operation.

Some friend could confirm that, please?
Thanks a lot.

Best regards.

Alexandre Marini
IBM Informix Certified Professional v10 / v11.50 / v11.70 / v12.10
IBM Informix on Cloud - Database Administrator - 2017
IBM dashDB Managed Service for Analytics and Transactions - 2017
DB2 Advanced DBA - v10.5 for LUW
IBM Information Management Informix Technical Professional
IBM Certified Developer - Informix Genero
Informix independent consultant
________________________________
De: Alexandre Marini <alexandre_marini@hotmail.com>
Enviado: sexta-feira, 23 de março de 2018 15:06
Para: CHUAN LU; ids@iiug.org
Assunto: RE: index compression on Version 12.10 [40929]

Hi, Chuan.
Yes, from the manual page:

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_0401.htm

"When you issue the CREATE INDEX statement, the table is locked in exclusive
mode. If another process is using the table, CREATE INDEX returns an error.
(For an exception, however, see The ONLINE keyword of CREATE
INDEX<https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_0441.htm?view=kc#ids_sqs_0441>.)"

That's why online index creation is an advanced feature, only available at
EE/AE editions.

HTH
Regards.

Alexandre Marini
IBM Informix Certified Professional v10 / v11.50 / v11.70 / v12.10
IBM Informix on Cloud - Database Administrator - 2017
IBM dashDB Managed Service for Analytics and Transactions - 2017
DB2 Advanced DBA - v10.5 for LUW
IBM Information Management Informix Technical Professional
IBM Certified Developer - Informix Genero
Informix independent consultant
________________________________
De: ids-bounces@iiug.org <ids-bounces@iiug.org> em nome de CHUAN LU
<luchuan@cn.ibm.com>
Enviado: sexta-feira, 23 de março de 2018 00:03
Para: ids@iiug.org
Assunto: index compression on Version 12.10 [40929]

If i want to compress the detached index, Do the create index command lock the
whole user table ? it will affect the business.
thanks.








*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40935]

*******************************************************************************

RE: index compression on Version 12.10

March 23, 2018, 11:22 am

≫ Next: RE: index compression on Version 12.10

≪ Previous: RE: index compression on Version 12.10

$

0

0

Hi, Chuan.
Yes, from the manual page:

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_0401.htm

"When you issue the CREATE INDEX statement, the table is locked in exclusive
mode. If another process is using the table, CREATE INDEX returns an error.
(For an exception, however, see The ONLINE keyword of CREATE
INDEX<https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_0441.htm?view=kc#ids_sqs_0441>.)"

That's why online index creation is an advanced feature, only available at
EE/AE editions.

HTH
Regards.

Alexandre Marini
IBM Informix Certified Professional v10 / v11.50 / v11.70 / v12.10
IBM Informix on Cloud - Database Administrator - 2017
IBM dashDB Managed Service for Analytics and Transactions - 2017
DB2 Advanced DBA - v10.5 for LUW
IBM Information Management Informix Technical Professional
IBM Certified Developer - Informix Genero
Informix independent consultant
________________________________
De: ids-bounces@iiug.org <ids-bounces@iiug.org> em nome de CHUAN LU
<luchuan@cn.ibm.com>
Enviado: sexta-feira, 23 de março de 2018 00:03
Para: ids@iiug.org
Assunto: index compression on Version 12.10 [40929]

If i want to compress the detached index, Do the create index command lock the
whole user table ? it will affect the business.
thanks.








*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40936]

*******************************************************************************

RE: index compression on Version 12.10

March 23, 2018, 11:24 am

≫ Next: RE: index compression on Version 12.10

≪ Previous: RE: index compression on Version 12.10

$

0

0

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_0401.htm

An index can be created ONLINE and COMPRESSED.


https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_0441.htm#ids_sqs_0441

"the database server briefly locks the table while updating the system catalog
with information about the new index."

Regards,
David.

Regareds,
David.

> On 23 March 2018 at 18:11 Alexandre Marini <alexandre_marini@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, I thougth you was asking about index creation.
> Manual says nothing about it.
> But I think the engine will only require a share intent lock, not an
exclusive
> one during the whole operation.
>
> Some friend could confirm that, please?
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Alexandre Marini
> IBM Informix Certified Professional v10 / v11.50 / v11.70 / v12.10
> IBM Informix on Cloud - Database Administrator - 2017
> IBM dashDB Managed Service for Analytics and Transactions - 2017
> DB2 Advanced DBA - v10.5 for LUW
> IBM Information Management Informix Technical Professional
> IBM Certified Developer - Informix Genero
> Informix independent consultant
> ________________________________
> De: Alexandre Marini <alexandre_marini@hotmail.com>
> Enviado: sexta-feira, 23 de março de 2018 15:06
> Para: CHUAN LU; ids@iiug.org
> Assunto: RE: index compression on Version 12.10 [40929]
>
> Hi, Chuan.
> Yes, from the manual page:
>
>
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_0401.htm
>
> "When you issue the CREATE INDEX statement, the table is locked in exclusive
> mode. If another process is using the table, CREATE INDEX returns an error.
> (For an exception, however, see The ONLINE keyword of CREATE
>
INDEX<https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_0441.htm?view=kc#ids_sqs_0441>.)"
>
> That's why online index creation is an advanced feature, only available at
> EE/AE editions.
>
> HTH
> Regards.
>
> Alexandre Marini
> IBM Informix Certified Professional v10 / v11.50 / v11.70 / v12.10
> IBM Informix on Cloud - Database Administrator - 2017
> IBM dashDB Managed Service for Analytics and Transactions - 2017
> DB2 Advanced DBA - v10.5 for LUW
> IBM Information Management Informix Technical Professional
> IBM Certified Developer - Informix Genero
> Informix independent consultant
> ________________________________
> De: ids-bounces@iiug.org <ids-bounces@iiug.org> em nome de CHUAN LU
> <luchuan@cn.ibm.com>
> Enviado: sexta-feira, 23 de março de 2018 00:03
> Para: ids@iiug.org
> Assunto: index compression on Version 12.10 [40929]
>
> If i want to compress the detached index, Do the create index command lock
the
> whole user table ? it will affect the business.
> thanks.
>
>
>

>
>
>
>

>
>




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40937]

*******************************************************************************

RE: index compression on Version 12.10

March 23, 2018, 11:28 am

≫ Next: RE: index compression on Version 12.10

≪ Previous: RE: index compression on Version 12.10

$

0

0

Thanks David, so only on advanced and enterprise editions.

Best regards.

Alexandre Marini
IBM Informix Certified Professional v10 / v11.50 / v11.70 / v12.10
IBM Informix on Cloud - Database Administrator - 2017
IBM dashDB Managed Service for Analytics and Transactions - 2017
DB2 Advanced DBA - v10.5 for LUW
IBM Information Management Informix Technical Professional
IBM Certified Developer - Informix Genero
Informix independent consultant

________________________________
De: david@smooth1.co.uk <david@smooth1.co.uk>
Enviado: sexta-feira, 23 de março de 2018 15:24
Para: ids@iiug.org; Alexandre Marini
Assunto: RE: index compression on Version 12.10 [40935]


https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_0401.htm

An index can be created ONLINE and COMPRESSED.


https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_0441.htm#ids_sqs_0441

"the database server briefly locks the table while updating the system catalog
with information about the new index."

Regards,
David.

Regareds,
David.

> On 23 March 2018 at 18:11 Alexandre Marini <alexandre_marini@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, I thougth you was asking about index creation.
> Manual says nothing about it.
> But I think the engine will only require a share intent lock, not an
exclusive
> one during the whole operation.
>
> Some friend could confirm that, please?
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Alexandre Marini
> IBM Informix Certified Professional v10 / v11.50 / v11.70 / v12.10
> IBM Informix on Cloud - Database Administrator - 2017
> IBM dashDB Managed Service for Analytics and Transactions - 2017
> DB2 Advanced DBA - v10.5 for LUW
> IBM Information Management Informix Technical Professional
> IBM Certified Developer - Informix Genero
> Informix independent consultant
> ________________________________
> De: Alexandre Marini <alexandre_marini@hotmail.com>
> Enviado: sexta-feira, 23 de março de 2018 15:06
> Para: CHUAN LU; ids@iiug.org
> Assunto: RE: index compression on Version 12.10 [40929]
>
> Hi, Chuan.
> Yes, from the manual page:
>
>
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_0401.htm
>
> "When you issue the CREATE INDEX statement, the table is locked in exclusive
> mode. If another process is using the table, CREATE INDEX returns an error.
> (For an exception, however, see The ONLINE keyword of CREATE
>
INDEX<https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGU8G_12.1.0/com.ibm.sqls.doc/ids_sqs_0441.htm?view=kc#ids_sqs_0441>.)"
>
> That's why online index creation is an advanced feature, only available at
> EE/AE editions.
>
> HTH
> Regards.
>
> Alexandre Marini
> IBM Informix Certified Professional v10 / v11.50 / v11.70 / v12.10
> IBM Informix on Cloud - Database Administrator - 2017
> IBM dashDB Managed Service for Analytics and Transactions - 2017
> DB2 Advanced DBA - v10.5 for LUW
> IBM Information Management Informix Technical Professional
> IBM Certified Developer - Informix Genero
> Informix independent consultant
> ________________________________
> De: ids-bounces@iiug.org <ids-bounces@iiug.org> em nome de CHUAN LU
> <luchuan@cn.ibm.com>
> Enviado: sexta-feira, 23 de março de 2018 00:03
> Para: ids@iiug.org
> Assunto: index compression on Version 12.10 [40929]
>
> If i want to compress the detached index, Do the create index command lock
the
> whole user table ? it will affect the business.
> thanks.
>
>
>

>
>
>
>

>
>




*******************************************************************************

To post a response via email (IIUG members only):

1. Address it to ids@iiug.org
2. Include the bracketed message number in the subject line: [40938]

*******************************************************************************