Re: HELP: Get ORA-1555 rollback too small

>
> You can commit at whatever rate your heart desires, just keep in mind
> that whenever you do this you increase risk of 1555 for some other
> long running query against the same table.

One more time, then. Commiting, in and of itself, does *not* increase the risk of 1555.

Witness 9i, where the right to over-write rollback is completely and formally divorced from the commit, thanks to undo_retention. In earlier versions, sure -a commit meant you were free to over-write. But even in those versions, it didn't mean you *had* to over-write.

Only the size of the rollback segment (or the lack of it) means that.

I'm sorry of this is a difficult point for you to grasp.

>Having LARGE rollback
> segment is certainly an option, but sometimes DBAs prefer to specify
> an OPTIMAL size, so that not to waste disk space, I beleive.

Well, they're idiots then, putting it bluntly. OPTIMAL is nothing but a lazy DBAs way of not managing things properly, given that every DBA has complete control over his or her rollback segments at times and places of his/her choosing.

There is no need to waste space, provided you manage the damn thing properly in the first place!

>I agree
> that in a perfect world rollback segments should be of infinite size,

I don't, since that's plainly ridiculous. I mentioned infinite rollback segments to point out you the simple fact that commits do not, in and of themselves, cause 1555s.

> or Oracle should not recycle them if there are queries needing data
> from them.

If they're big enough, Oracle has no need to recycle them, whether or not it has the ability to do so.

Enough.

HJR
>And of course business rules should govern database
> activity - in a perfect world that is.
>
> Igor Izvekov.
Received on Fri Dec 06 2002 - 17:47:03 CST