Re: changing rollbacks

Hi Doug,
This sounds a bit strange. Let me recap You have three tablespaces, each consisting of 1 datafile (it's not the other way around, the big picture is one database consists of one or multiple tablespaces and one tablespace consists of one or more datafiles) and each of those three tablespaces with only 1 rollback segment in it. Initially the rollbacks were sized at 70M. Dropping any object doesn't clear out datafiles, if it clears out anything is clears out tablespaces.
Apparently, if the system is complaining about resize, the tablespace is not empty.
This can be caused by the rollbacks not being dropped (you don't say you put them offline first, you probably did), or other objects being there. The only way to verify is to query the dba_extents view for the suspected tablespaces and see what's reported.
You are right in saying, that if you would drop the tablespaces (INCLUDING CONTENTS), then that would probably resolve it. However, you must have objects sitting in those tablespaces.

Hth,

Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA

Doug Cowles wrote in message <374EE970.1164527_at_bigfoot.com>...
>I could be just tired - but somthing's bugging me. I have three
>rollbacks,
>intitially sized at 70M on datafiles of 1.5 GB each. One tablespace per
>
>datafile, and one rollback segment for each tablespace. Nothing else in
>
>the tablespaces but their respective rollbacks.
>
>I wanted to change the intial size of the three rollbacks to 300M, and
>then
>shrink the datafiles to 600M. I dropped the three rollbacks, (which I
>thought
>would clear out the datafiles completely), and then recreated them with
>the new
>storage parameters. When I try to shrink the datafiles to 600M, it
>tells me
>, ORA-03297: file contains 641 blocks of data beyond the requested
>RESIZE value.
>
>Now, it's Friday, and I'm leaving this one, but instinct tells me if I
>re-create the
>tablespace, everything will be dandy.. but how can this happen? If I've
>dropped any
>segments that are in that tablespace, corresponding to a rollback
>segment whose
>high water mark never exceeded 300M, why would there be data or
>allocated extents
>floating around the 600M mark??
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Dc.
>
Received on Sat May 29 1999 - 01:04:43 CDT