recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: ORA-01555 Mystery (Help)
>
> Jared:
> The table was analyzed (via estimate) Wednesday night.
> I don't know if it was before or after Wednesday
> night's attempt at the extract but if the blocks are
> getting cleaned
anuary 26, 2002 1:11 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: ORA-01555 Mystery (Help)
>
> Jared:
> The table was analyzed (via estimate) Wednesday night.
> I don't know if it was before or after Wednesday
> night's attempt at the extract but if
TECTED]]
> Sent: Sat, January 26, 2002 1:11 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: ORA-01555 Mystery (Help)
>
> Jared:
> The table was analyzed (via estimate) Wednesday night.
> I don't know if it was before or after Wednesday
> night's atte
might as
well compute the stats.
But now I'm speculating. :)
Jared
Walter K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
01/25/02 11:20 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:
ate"
> the
> update
> SCN. Hence, we get an ORA-01555.
>
>
>
>
>
> Stephane Faroult <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 01/25/02 10:39 AM
> Please respond to ORACLE-L
>
>
> To: Multiple recipients of list
Title: RE: ORA-01555 Mystery (Help)
would "Set transaction read only" help here?
-Original Message-
From: Baker, Barbara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:35 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: ORA-01555 Mystery (Help)
I
sa
> where s.taddr=t.addr
> and t.xidusn=r.segment_id(+)
> and s.sql_address=sa.address(+)
> /
>
>
>
> > ------
> > From: Walter K[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 12:30 PM
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 3:05 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: ORA-01555 Mystery (Help)
>
> I don't have a definitive answer for that.
>
>
ROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 12:30 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: ORA-01555 Mystery (Help)
>
> Another fact, that should be mentioned, is that the
> table in question was built (loaded
gt; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 11:09 AM
> To: Baker; Barbara; Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject:Re:RE: ORA-01555 Mystery (Help)
>
> Barb,
>
> I've t
anyway, you might as
well compute the stats.
But now I'm speculating. :)
Jared
Walter K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
01/25/02 11:20 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
S
t ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: ORA-01555 Mystery (Help)
I was almost ready to subscribe to the idea of delayed cleanout, but I
cannot understand why really. The necessity for reading a block from the
rollback segments comes from encountering during the c
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
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Kathy Duret wrote:
> How about doing a set transaction to a large rollback before running
> this query if the analyze doesn't resolve the problem.
That will have no effect.
http://www.speakeasy.org/~jwilton/oracle/snapshot-too-old.html
--
Jeremiah Wilton
http://www.speakea
ate
> and commit a change? Well that is NOT going to be included in your
> result set
> since it is already locked in concrete.
>
> Try one of these & see if it fixes your problem.
>
> Dick Goulet
>
> Reply Separator__
t;
>
>
>
> 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:
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 mod
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 11:09 AM
> To: Baker; Barbara; Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject:Re:RE: ORA-01555 Mystery (Help)
>
> Barb,
>
> I've tried Steve's idea in the past and although it sorta fixed
> the p
llback 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 ORACL
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 warehousin
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 ORACL
Is it a simple select statement, or is it a cursor select in an PL/SQL
block? Does her transaction itself perform any DML on those tables?
Raj
Walter K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@fatcity.com on 01/25/2002 11:15:26 AM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Multip
n'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)
>
&g
Don't believe your users. Somebody is causing
oracle to read blocks in consistent mode, ie. reading them
from rollback segments. If the user is right, then try
locking the participating tables in the exclusive mode and see
who will complain. Alternatively, go to V$ACCESS table, see who is
accessin
In Tom Kyte's book Expert 1-on-1
he says to ANALYZE the table BEFORE starting a big query.
Read Chapter 5, starting on page 185 for a complete explanation.
Walter K wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A user in our data warehousing group is running into
> the old ORA-01555 (snapshot too old) error every time
>
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
upd
26 matches
Mail list logo
