I mixed up issues slightly. Intra-block chaining with tables with more than 255 columns is the issue I was thinking of. They would show up with analyze table list chained rows and exhibit this behavior since they are chained. On Sep 18, 2014 4:07 PM, "Riyaj Shamsudeen" <riyaj.shamsudeen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Chris > Snapper should also spit out statistics for 'table fetch continued row' > if you use gather=stw. Could you post the full output of snapper with > gather=stw? That will give us more data. > > Second, AFAIK, full table scan should not follow the chain for migrated > rows, except in the case of inmemory population: > https://orainternals.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/inmemory-why-didnt-that-table-was-populated-in-the-column-store/ > > Yes, dbms_stats doesn't populate chain_cnt. You must use analyze table.. > > Another possibility is that may be the buffer cache already has blocks > of the table cached and so, single block reads are performed. > > Cheers > > Riyaj Shamsudeen > Principal DBA, > Ora!nternals - http://www.orainternals.com - Specialists in Performance, > RAC and EBS > Blog: http://orainternals.wordpress.com/ > Oracle ACE Director and OakTable member <http://www.oaktable.com/> > > Co-author of the books: Expert Oracle Practices > <http://tinyurl.com/book-expert-oracle-practices/>, Pro Oracle SQL, > <http://tinyurl.com/ahpvms8> <http://tinyurl.com/ahpvms8>Expert RAC > Practices 12c. <http://tinyurl.com/expert-rac-12c> Expert PL/SQL practices > <http://tinyurl.com/book-expert-plsql-practices> > > <http://tinyurl.com/book-expert-plsql-practices> > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Kenny Payton <k3nnyp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Look at the "analyze table list chained rows" command. It could be >> chained or migrated rows. >> >> We have pretty bad re-occurring migrated rows from time to time and have >> to reorg occasionally to get rid of them. Oracle added a feature to 12.? >> and 11.2.0.4 that gives you some control over migrated rows. The problem >> apparently raised its head during some Exadata performance proofing. >> >> Kenny >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Chris Taylor < >> christopherdtaylor1994@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> The last analyzed date (yesterday) shows CHAIN_CNT = 0 but I'm not >>> positive that is accurate. (Seems like I remember you have to check a >>> different way to get an accurate picture of chained or migrated rows) >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Wolfgang Breitling < >>> breitliw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> - chained rows >>>> - delayed block clean out >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >