Thanks !
What I am doing is actulay traping the rowcount from the update, not
the commit. SQL%ROWCOUNT is doing exactly what I needed, thanks to
everyone for the very usefull feedback.
"Keith Jamieson" <keith_jamieson_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<aq7pb.3651$bD.15268_at_news.indigo.ie>...
> Actually you need to trap the rowcount before the commit, otherwise the
> rowcount is back to either zero or 1. uisng SQL%ROWCOUNT works with both
> implicit and explicit cursors.
>
>
> "Richard Elliott" <richard.a.elliott_at_williams.com> wrote in message
> news:8c132b3c.0310311220.10c3903c_at_posting.google.com...
> > "Alkos" <azerty_at_nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:<bntof1$m9i3_at_news.rd.francetelecom.fr>...
> > > What about using a implicit cursor within a PL/SQL proc ?
> > > Cursors have a fancy property called %ROWCOUNT
> > >
> > > On the other hand, what about enlarging your RBS (if you can) ?
> > >
> > > "Richard Elliott" <richard.a.elliott_at_williams.com> a écrit dans le
> message
> > > news: 8c132b3c.0310310519.2963db99_at_posting.google.com...
> > > > I know the data is there somewhere. I'm running an update loop (5k
> > > > rows/commit) to avoid the rollback segment too small issue. It works
> > > > fine, but I have to do a count of the remaining rows to see if I need
> > > > to loop again. It would be much faster if I could just see if the
> > > > previous commit did 5k rows or not. How do I trap the "# of rows
> > > > affected" from the commit ?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks !
> >
> > Let me add some more detail to explain why I ask the question and
> > haven't considered the obvious. What I am doing is setting a flag in
> > each row based on other values in the row. The table has 48 Million
> > rows, and I expect to update about 5 million of them. No rollback
> > segment is going to allow that to happen as one transaction. I am
> > using a pl/sql procedure, ,but not a cursor. I don't think, (but I
> > will try it), I can cursor up that many rows (5 million). The column
> > is a new one and will be maintained by the ins/upd trigger going
> > forward. Just need to get it initilized to start with. Thanks for all
> > the feedback !
> >
> > Thanks for all the
Received on Mon Nov 03 2003 - 08:25:41 CST
