Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Troubleshooting ORA-01555 while using AUM

Re: Troubleshooting ORA-01555 while using AUM

From: Tech Geek <Tech_Geek_at_Gawab-IHateSpam.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:39:31 GMT
Message-ID: <7kd1c.14682$rW6.3299@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1078285536.67329_at_yasure...
> Tech Geek wrote:
>
> > Hi Daniel,
> > Information inline....
> > "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1078283224.499874_at_yasure...
> >
> >>Tech Geek wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>We are not using LOBs.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks
> >>
> >>Then ...
> >>
> >>1. Is the error message being generated in SQL*Plus at the command
> >> prompt or in a procedure and being written to an error logging
> >> table?
> >
> > Some of the batch jobsband occasionally exports fail with this error.
> >
> >
> >
> >>2. If the screen were there any additional ORA errors in the error
> >> stack or is it only an ORA-01555?
> >
> > It is just ORA-01555. I also check the alert log to see, if the this
error
> > is being accompanied by any others. But did find only ORA-1555s
> >
> >
> >>3. If being trapped by an error logging procedure ... does it capture
> >> only a single error or the entire error stack?
> >
> > Batch jobs, exports just fail with ORA-1555.
> >
> > One more thing, which I noticed in the alert log is ::
> > ORA-01555 caused by SQL statement below (Query Duration=1076649481 sec,
SCN:
> > 0x0001.2975b272):
> >
> > The value for 'Query Duration' is supposedly expressed in seconds in the
> > above extract, I am wondering if the unit of measurement is a true and
real
> > value. If yes, this value of 1076649481 'seconds' translates to 34
years.
> > Don't know the exact unit of measurement used here.
> >
> > I appreciate your help and time.
> >
> > Regards
>
> Now we're getting somewhere. I think something is wrong that has
> little or nothing to do with the standard reasons for 1555's.
> Have you searched metalink? Opened a TAR? Made sure there aren't
> any patches that make reference to 1555 that haven't been applied?
>
> At this point there is a part of me that is thinking ... create a
> brand new UNDO tablespace and drop the old one. In fact that is
> exactly what I'd do while waiting for Oracle to respond to the TAR.
>

I did open a TAR with Oracle both for V$Undostats and for the 'Query Duration' measurement. I am awaiting for their response. Will update as soon as I hear back from them.
Thanks

> --
> Daniel Morgan
> http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
> http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
> damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
> (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
>
Received on Tue Mar 02 2004 - 22:39:31 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US