Re: Rollback segments

Also, are you using the OPTIMAL parameter with your rollback segments? When the rollback segment(s) extended during the insert of 100,000 rows, you ran out of space. Without the use of the OPTIMAL parameter, you won't reclaim that space, and even much smaller inserts will fail. The OPTIMAL parameter tells the rollback segment(s) what size to shrink back down to when a large transaction has completed.

HTH,
Roy

In article <3777647E.27017DCD_at_lucent.com>,   Kenneth C Stahl <kstahl_at_lucent.com> wrote:
> The message you are getting indicates that the tablespace where you
have your
> rollback segments has filled up. Here are things to look at:
>
> 1. Do you have your rollback segments defined (and online) in a
tablespace other
> than SYSTEM? Many DBA's define a tablespace solely for the use of
rollback
> segments and by convention this tablespace is often called RBS. If
you have
> rollback segments defined in tablespaces where other objects are
defined (i.e.
> tables, indexes, etc.) then the tablespace must be defined to be of
adequate
> size to accomodate the rollback segments and the objects.
>
> 2. Do you have any rollback segments defined in your SYSTEM
tablespace other
> than the SYSTEM rollback segment? If so, they must be OFFLINE.
>
> 3. Are you severely limited in disk space available? If not, you
might want to
> resize the tablespace where you have your rollback segments. You
might even want
> to think about turning autoextend on - although that has some
consequences which
> may not be desireable in your situation.
>
> 4. Try inserting in smaller batches or committing more often.
>
> Ken
>
> "Cristóbal García" wrote:
>
> > Hello!!
> >
> > I'm testing Oracle in order to see if it suits our requirements
(Oracle
> > 8.0.5 for Linux) and I've created a package with some pl/sql
methods which
> > populate tables on a db.
> > The story is that I've inserted 10.000 rows and that's ok, when
I've
> > inserted 100.000 rows Oracle has issued me a 1600 error (Cannot
extend
> > rollback segments), that's a correct behavior I think, but since
then the
> > dbms has decreased dramatically its capacity to insert rows without
giving
> > me the same error. For example I've cleared the tables (left it in
0 rows)
> > and tried to re-insert the 10.000 rows. The 1600 condition strikes
back
> > again!!!!
> > I'd like to know if this is a normal behavior, if so I want to
know why
> > and how to correct it (It seems like Oracle cannot clear the
rollback
> > segments when the transaction is aborted).
> > I'd like to know your oppinion about Oracle 8 on Linux (Oracle
8i also)
> > because my boss and I are trying to decide between a dbms (I'm
working at a
> > University in Spain) and I prefer Oracle but my boss doesn't, so
I've we try
> > oracle and it's not stable or needs lot of management (our normal
work isn't
> > very hard so I think the DBA tasks can be done by a non dedicated
employee)
> > I will probably be fired :(
> >
> > Thanx a lot
>
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Received on Mon Jun 28 1999 - 09:53:04 CDT