RE: Chained vs. migrated rows - Any easy way to tell the difference?
- From: <Joel.Patterson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <yong321@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:14:02 -0500
Thanks, I believe is was a long lost recollection that was re-introduced
by Mark leading to a new chained_rows table that can handle IOT's.
That fixed the 01495 error anyway. The difference between
dba_tables.chain_cnt and what is contained in chained_rows table now is
still a mystery. Stats are collected nightly.
Joel Patterson
Database Administrator
joel.patterson@xxxxxxxxxxx
x72546
904 727-2546
-----Original Message-----
From: Yong Huang [mailto:yong321@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:17 PM
To: Patterson, Joel
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Chained vs. migrated rows - Any easy way to tell the
difference?
Joel,
Regarding "ORA-01495: specified chain row table not
found", a systematic way to troubleshoot this type of
problem is to enable SQL trace:
alter session set events '10046 trace name context
forever, level 4'
followed by your analyze list chained rows. The trace file
will show you exactly where it goes wrong. If the trace file
doesn't show or doesn't show enough recursive SQLs,
flush shared pool and try again. If you absolutely cannot
flush shared pool, try some "harmless" DDL on the table and
recreate the chained_rows table that you think is used to
get the recursive SQLs out of dictionary cache.
Yong Huang
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
