Re: Oracle dbf problem

From: Richard Foote <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:39:27 +1000
Message-ID: <8%x%8.43139$Hj3.129794@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>

Hi Norman,

If it's any consolation, it's fixed again in 9i.

SQL> alter table large deallocate unused keep 1k;

Table altered.

SQL> analyze table large compute statistics;

Table analyzed.

SQL> select blocks, empty_blocks, num_rows from user_tables where table_name ='LARGE'; BLOCKS EMPTY_BLOCKS NUM_ROWS
---------- ------------ ----------

1 1 1

Cheers

Richard
"Norman Dunbar" <Norman.Dunbar_at_lfs.co.uk> wrote in message news:E2F6A70FE45242488C865C3BC1245DA702699854_at_lnewton.leeds.lfs.co.uk...
> Dash it all !
>
> Looks like Bug 1502537 is back in 8174 after being cured in 8171.
>
> alter table test deallocate unused keep 1K;
> Ora-0600 [kcbgcur_2]
>
> Ok, so the 1K is a bit small , but Oracle is clever enough to keep the
> extents high enough to keep the current data :o).
>
> I'm beginning to think that 8174 isn't a happy relaese - I've got a
> couple of bugs that are fixed in < 8174 which seem to be back in again.
> Never mind, I've got TARs open on them.
>
> :o(
>
>
> Regards,
> Norman.
>
> -------------------------------------
> Norman Dunbar
> Database/Unix administrator
> Lynx Financial Systems Ltd.
> mailto:Norman.Dunbar_at_LFS.co.uk
> Tel: 0113 289 6265
> Fax: 0113 289 3146
> URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com
> -------------------------------------
>
Received on Wed Jul 24 2002 - 08:39:27 CDT