Re: 11g. Incorrect results returned from query.
From: <Ralph.in.NZ_at_googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5c0b81e3-8daf-48e3-82b1-400892eaef7a@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
> Shakespeare <what..._at_xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > "Dan Blum" <t..._at_panix.com> schreef in bericht
> >news:g1po2l$qf1$1_at_reader2.panix.com...
> > > Ralph.in..._at_googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > >> Unfortunately we have attempted to re run our bulk load process (this
> > >> is a DW app) from the beginning and the queries are now showing the
> > >> correct results.
>
> > >> The first issue we encontered of this type (which I alluded to in my
> > >> first post)
> > >> is still repeatable...)
>
> > >> Here is the example of that one. I think that the two must be related.
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > I may be missing something obvious, but the results for all three queries
> > > in this example looked correct to me - what is the problem?
>
> > > --
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Dan Blum t..._at_panix.com
> > > "I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."
> > There's a column missing when more than 4 values are returned fo a row.
>
> Ah, I was expecting something similar to the other issue, where it was
> rows that were missing. I thought this was just a SQL*Plus display issue.
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Dan Blum t..._at_panix.com
> "I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5c0b81e3-8daf-48e3-82b1-400892eaef7a@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
On 31 May, 00:58, t..._at_panix.com (Dan Blum) wrote:
> Shakespeare <what..._at_xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > "Dan Blum" <t..._at_panix.com> schreef in bericht
> >news:g1po2l$qf1$1_at_reader2.panix.com...
> > > Ralph.in..._at_googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > >> Unfortunately we have attempted to re run our bulk load process (this
> > >> is a DW app) from the beginning and the queries are now showing the
> > >> correct results.
>
> > >> The first issue we encontered of this type (which I alluded to in my
> > >> first post)
> > >> is still repeatable...)
>
> > >> Here is the example of that one. I think that the two must be related.
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > I may be missing something obvious, but the results for all three queries
> > > in this example looked correct to me - what is the problem?
>
> > > --
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Dan Blum t..._at_panix.com
> > > "I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."
> > There's a column missing when more than 4 values are returned fo a row.
>
> Ah, I was expecting something similar to the other issue, where it was
> rows that were missing. I thought this was just a SQL*Plus display issue.
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Dan Blum t..._at_panix.com
> "I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi All,
Update: The problem is due to an 11g bug with table compression. We are in the process of producing a test case for OSS. The issue is extremely rare, in our case only effecting 6 rows out of 50 million, so producing a small test case is proving difficult. In the mean time we are not using compression.
Cheers
Ralph Received on Tue Jun 10 2008 - 07:29:00 CDT