The full scan was only an example. What I wanted to say: take any case where partition pruning at runtime occurs. I still don't see why for a "partition for" clause this cannot also hold.
January 18, - pm UTC. But it is an identifier none the less - not a where clause specification - and hence like all identifiers must be known at compile time. Sokrates, January 18, - pm UTC. So, how could this happen? How could our merge statement move one row from one partition into another one which was not burned into it's compiled code?
Now, we merge into the "burned into the bytecode" partition for date'' - and will end in another one! The into clause told it what to read. I'll file one - it doesn't look entirely right to me. There are identifiers - tablenames tablename partition partition-name tablename for They must be, by definition, known at compile time. The binary plan, the program, depends on knowing them all.
January 19, - am UTC. I'm flip flopping as to whether this is a bug or not. It will match a row in the specified partition, and if it does, it updates it. If the existing row, which is in the specified partition, needs to move, it will move. If it does not match a row in the specified partition even if that row exists elsewhere in the table , it inserts it. If the insert isn't into that partition, it fails. The sql language reference manual does not contain the entire language it doesn't really even mention bind variables, that is left to the programming guides.
I just think, it would be nice to have it available for the partition for - clause, but when it is forbidden by ANSI at the moment, I have to live without it. Bug or not: probably a matter of taste?
When the behaviour is not specified explicitly in the DOCs , it may work anyway. Thank you anyway for sharing your thoughts and insights. Or - just the inputs to it? Hi Tom, I have a target table for update and has partitions. I have a source table and has 20 millions records spread in target table for 10 partitions.
I want to update multiple columns in MERGE statement,but for each column the conditions are different. How can I achieve it. I have more than 1 million rows in both the tables. All columns are number. Except Id all 3 columns have number with precision around 18 digits eg: 1.
Is there a better way to Update. Around 50, rows might update daily So I have to merge the updates values to target table. I don't think you need the loop. I'm assuming your id's are primary keys and you didn't mean to repeat crank several times in your example.
Edit per Raj A's comment. This will only update rows where one of the other fields has changed. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. And output returns 13 records. Employee1 table was consisting of 3 records with debt number Update operation updates the Deptnumber from 10 to 40 because all 3 records are matched with source table.
Delete operation deletes the records if the salary is higher than and it finds one record out three. So it gets deleted and after that remain only two records yellow highlighted. Insert operation inserts all source table Employee data into the target table which are not matching the ON clause condition.
So the final output showing 13 records. Merge is a convenient way to combine multiple DML operations. You can also go through our other related articles to learn more —.
Submit Next Question. By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Forgot Password? If not, you could try pulling the rowid out in the "new" subquery.. Test it.. Below is an example. Balazs Papp Balazs Papp Thanks, unfortunately that doesn't work for me - I get updated only rows where the condition is matched.
I put expected result in my question. Maybe that will help. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown.
0コメント