Another fact, that should be mentioned, is that the table in question was built (loaded) two days ago. The nightly ETL processes for the warehouse are pretty substantial and the likelyhood of a block not getting cleaned/flushed out for a couple days should be nil.
To summarize: 1. Tuesday Night: -truncate/load table 'A' (24 million rows) -Perform massive select from 'A', fails 5 hours later with 1555. NO DML BEING PERFORMED AGAINST 'A' BY ANY OTHER SESSION 2. Wednesday Night: -Perform massive select against 'A', fails 5 hours later with ORA-1555. NO DML BEING PERFORMED AGAINST 'A' BY ANY OTHER SESSION 3. Thursday night: -'lock table A in exclusive mode;' via session 123 -perform massive select against 'A', fails 5 hours later with ORA-1555 via session 124. NO DML BEING PERFORMED AGAINST 'A' BY ANY OTHER SESSION -session 123 still has exclusive lock on table 'A' the following morning 4. Friday morning: -Walter is stumped but still trying to figure out a solution! :) -w --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Delayed block cleanouts can still cause the > ORA-1555, even > after locking the table in exlusive mode. > > That's the purpose of the analyze, to force the > block cleanouts. > > Jared > > > > > > > Paul Baumgartel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 01/25/02 09:30 AM > Please respond to ORACLE-L > > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: > Subject: RE: ORA-01555 Mystery (Help) > > > Sure, but the original post concerns a *query*, not > a transaction, and > before running the query, the user locked the > queried table in > exclusive mode, to ensure that no other session > could write to the > queried table. How do we account for the query's > need to read from > rollback? > > > --- "Baker, Barbara" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I have a batch job that does this consistently. > It's the only job in > > the > > database; it sets the transaction to a hugh > rollback segment. And it > > eats > > its own tail. > > > > Depending on how the job is written, it may need a > read consistent > > view > > itself (as opposed to some other query in the > database needing that > > read > > consistent view.) In that case, it may well go > try to read its own > > rollback segment, only to find that it's been > overwritten. (Oddly > > enough, > > even when there's plenty of space to extend the > rollback, Oracle will > > decide > > to overwrite the original rollback segments rather > than extend if it > > thinks > > it doesn't need those segments any more.) > > > > I'd strongly suggest you get the stuff from Steve > Adams' ixora site > > that > > places an uncommitted transaction in your rollback > segments for the > > length > > of the run. This will guarantee that the > rollback segments don't > > get > > overwritten. > > Good luck! > > > > Barb > > > > > ---------- > > > From: Walter > K[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 > 9:15 AM > > > To: Multiple recipients of list > ORACLE-L > > > Subject: ORA-01555 Mystery (Help) > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > A user in our data warehousing group is running > into > > > the old ORA-01555 (snapshot too old) error every > time > > > she runs a massive (20 million rows) select > against > > > one table via a view. I confirmed that the view > only > > > translates to the one table. > > > > > > The user swears that no one would be making any > > > updates/deletes to the table she is selecting > from. I > > > suggested she lock the table in exclusive mode, > prior > > > to running her massive select to guarantee no > one else > > > could change the data in the table and cause the > > > triggering of the 1555 error. Locking the table > was a > > > viable option because it's a staging table in > the > > > warehouse itself. She locked the table in > exclusive > > > mode last night and it locked; fired off her > query, > > > and it failed 5 hours later with the 1555 error > again. > > > > > > I'm stumped on this. I just don't see how this > is > > > possible. Any suggestions? > > > > > > Thanks!!! > > > -w > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > . > > > > -- > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: > http://www.orafaq.com > -- > Author: > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: > (858) 538-5051 > San Diego, California -- Public Internet > access / Mailing Lists > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an > E-Mail message > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of > 'ListGuru') and in > the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB > ORACLE-L > (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed > from). You may > also send the HELP command for other information > (like subscribing). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Walter K INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
