I'm trying to use
SELECT currval('myTable_Orderid_seq');
I got error: currval not supported.
Any work around this is much appreciated.
I need to use currval for each users' session in a multi user environment.
If currval is not available (yet) in the session you can do this:
select last_value from myTable_Orderid_seq
From the doc: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-createsequence.html
Although you cannot update a sequence directly, you can use a query
like:
SELECT * FROM name;
to examine the parameters and current state of a sequence. In
particular, the last_value field of the sequence shows the last value
allocated by any session. (Of course, this value might be obsolete by
the time it's printed, if other sessions are actively doing nextval
calls.)
Related
I'm using Oracle SQL Developer version 4.02.15.21.
I need to write a query that accesses multiple databases. All that I'm trying to do is get a list of all the IDs present in "TableX" (There is an instance of Table1 in each of these databases, but with different values) in each database and union all of the results together into one big list.
My problem comes with accessing more than 4 databases -- I get this error: ORA-02020: too many database links in use. I cannot change the INIT.ORA file's open_links maximum limit.
So I've tried dynamically opening/closing these links:
SELECT Local.PUID FROM TableX Local
UNION ALL
----
SELECT Xdb1.PUID FROM TableX#db1 Xdb1;
ALTER SESSION CLOSE DATABASE LINK db1
UNION ALL
----
SELECT Xdb2.PUID FROM TableX#db2 Xdb2;
ALTER SESSION CLOSE DATABASE LINK db2
UNION ALL
----
SELECT Xdb3.PUID FROM TableX#db3 Xdb3;
ALTER SESSION CLOSE DATABASE LINK db3
UNION ALL
----
SELECT Xdb4.PUID FROM TableX#db4 Xdb4;
ALTER SESSION CLOSE DATABASE LINK db4
UNION ALL
----
SELECT Xdb5.PUID FROM TableX#db5 Xdb5;
ALTER SESSION CLOSE DATABASE LINK db5
However this produces 'ORA-02081: database link is not open.' On whichever db is being closed out last.
Can someone please suggest an alternative or adjustment to the above?
Please provide a small sample of your suggestion with syntactically correct SQL if possible.
If you can't change the open_links setting, you cannot have a single query that selects from all the databases you want to query.
If your requirement is to query a large number of databases via database links, it seems highly reasonable to change the open_links setting. If you have one set of people telling you that you need to do X (query data from a large number of tables) and another set of people telling you that you cannot do X, it almost always makes sense to have those two sets of people talk and figure out which imperative wins.
If we can solve the problem without writing a single query, then you have options. You can write a bit of PL/SQL, for example, that selects the data from each table in turn and does something with it. Depending on the number of database links involved, it may make sense to write a loop that generates a dynamic SQL statement for each database link, executes the SQL, and then closes the database link.
If you want need to provide a user with the ability to run a single query that returns all the data, you can write a pipelined table function that implements this sort of loop with dynamic SQL and then let the user query the pipelined table function. This isn't really a single query that fetches the data from all the tables. But it is as close as you're likely to get without modifying the open_links limit.
I am using Oracle
What is difference when we create ID using max(id)+1 and using sequance.nexval,where to use and when?
Like:
insert into student (id,name) values (select max(id)+1 from student, 'abc');
and
insert into student (id,name) values (SQ_STUDENT.nextval, 'abc');
SQ_STUDENT.nextval sometime gives error that duplicate record...
please help me on this doubt
With the select max(id) + 1 approach, two sessions inserting simultaneously will see the same current max ID from the table, and both insert the same new ID value. The only way to use this safely is to lock the table before starting the transaction, which is painful and serialises the transactions. (And as Stijn points out, values can be reused if the highest record is deleted). Basically, never use this approach. (There may very occasionally be a compelling reason to do so, but I'm not sure I've ever seen one).
The sequence guarantees that the two sessions will get different values, and no serialisation is needed. It will perform better and be safer, easier to code and easier to maintain.
The only way you can get duplicate errors using the sequence is if records already exist in the table with IDs above the sequence value, or if something is still inserting records without using the sequence. So if you had an existing table with manually entered IDs, say 1 to 10, and you created a sequence with a default start-with value of 1, the first insert using the sequence would try to insert an ID of 1 - which already exists. After trying that 10 times the sequence would give you 11, which would work. If you then used the max-ID approach to do the next insert that would use 12, but the sequence would still be on 11 and would also give you 12 next time you called nextval.
The sequence and table are not related. The sequence is not automatically updated if a manually-generated ID value is inserted into the table, so the two approaches don't mix. (Among other things, the same sequence can be used to generate IDs for multiple tables, as mentioned in the docs).
If you're changing from a manual approach to a sequence approach, you need to make sure the sequence is created with a start-with value that is higher than all existing IDs in the table, and that everything that does an insert uses the sequence only in the future.
Using a sequence works if you intend to have multiple users. Using a max does not.
If you do a max(id) + 1 and you allow multiple users, then multiple sessions that are both operating at the same time will regularly see the same max and, thus, will generate the same new key. Assuming you've configured your constraints correctly, that will generate an error that you'll have to handle. You'll handle it by retrying the INSERT which may fail again and again if other sessions block you before your session retries but that's a lot of extra code for every INSERT operation.
It will also serialize your code. If I insert a new row in my session and go off to lunch before I remember to commit (or my client application crashes before I can commit), every other user will be prevented from inserting a new row until I get back and commit or the DBA kills my session, forcing a reboot.
To add to the other answers, a couple of issues.
Your max(id)+1 syntax will also fail if there are no rows in the table already, so use:
Coalesce(Max(id),0) + 1
There's nothing wrong with this technique if you only have a single process that inserts into the table, as might be the case with a data warehouse load, and if max(id) is fast (which it probably is).
It also avoids the need for code to synchronise values between tables and sequences if you are moving restoring data to a test system, for example.
You can extend this method to multirow insert by using:
Coalesce(max(id),0) + rownum
I expect that might serialise a parallel insert, though.
Some techniques don't work well with these methods. They rely of course on being able to issue the select statement, so SQL*Loader might be ruled out. However SQL*Loader has support for this technique in general through the SEQUENCE parameter of the column specification: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e22490/ldr_field_list.htm#i1008234
Assuming MAX(ID) is actually fast enough, wouldn't it be possible to:
First get MAX(ID)+1
Then get NEXTVAL
Compare those two and increase sequence in case NEXTVAL is smaller then MAX(ID)+1
Use NEXTVAL in INSERT statement
In that case I would have a fully stable procedure and manual inserts would also be allowed without worrying about updating the sequence
I have oracle query that takes 10 to 20 min but I want user to see those data immediately. The data is stored for certain time and data is live and each hour new data is added. Is it possible to cache these data so that the query would take less time or no time?
Note:I am using linked server
Yes this is one of the neat new features of 11g. Oracle build in the RESULT_CACHE_MODE. This mode allows us to be able to cache result sets of queries.
There are three methods of initializing this.
1. Set as sys variable (alter system)
2. current session variable (alter session)
3. use a hint in your specific query
Default this parameter is set to MANUAL. you can check by executing this query in your SQL session.
SQL> SELECT value FROM v$parameter WHERE name = 'result_cache_mode';
My personal preference is to keep the default value MANUAL and hint the query which I want to cache as I only have a couple of them which I want cached. This way I can select wich query is cached and none will be cached by default.
To cache a specific query you will need to set the /*+ RESULT_CACHE */ hint in your query. Here's an example.
SELECT /*+ RESULT_CACHE */ foo,
bar,
lorem
FROM dual
WHERE foo > 10;
Hope this helps you!
EDIT:
You should also check these system variables to see if the size is acceptable and you can also see and set the expiration time in system variable result_cache_remote_expiration
SELECT name, value, isdefault
FROM v$parameter
WHERE name LIKE 'result_cache%';
Can I find out when the last INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE statement was performed on a table in an Oracle database and if so, how?
A little background: The Oracle version is 10g. I have a batch application that runs regularly, reads data from a single Oracle table and writes it into a file. I would like to skip this if the data hasn't changed since the last time the job ran.
The application is written in C++ and communicates with Oracle via OCI. It logs into Oracle with a "normal" user, so I can't use any special admin stuff.
Edit: Okay, "Special Admin Stuff" wasn't exactly a good description. What I mean is: I can't do anything besides SELECTing from tables and calling stored procedures. Changing anything about the database itself (like adding triggers), is sadly not an option if want to get it done before 2010.
I'm really late to this party but here's how I did it:
SELECT SCN_TO_TIMESTAMP(MAX(ora_rowscn)) from myTable;
It's close enough for my purposes.
Since you are on 10g, you could potentially use the ORA_ROWSCN pseudocolumn. That gives you an upper bound of the last SCN (system change number) that caused a change in the row. Since this is an increasing sequence, you could store off the maximum ORA_ROWSCN that you've seen and then look only for data with an SCN greater than that.
By default, ORA_ROWSCN is actually maintained at the block level, so a change to any row in a block will change the ORA_ROWSCN for all rows in the block. This is probably quite sufficient if the intention is to minimize the number of rows you process multiple times with no changes if we're talking about "normal" data access patterns. You can rebuild the table with ROWDEPENDENCIES which will cause the ORA_ROWSCN to be tracked at the row level, which gives you more granular information but requires a one-time effort to rebuild the table.
Another option would be to configure something like Change Data Capture (CDC) and to make your OCI application a subscriber to changes to the table, but that also requires a one-time effort to configure CDC.
Ask your DBA about auditing. He can start an audit with a simple command like :
AUDIT INSERT ON user.table
Then you can query the table USER_AUDIT_OBJECT to determine if there has been an insert on your table since the last export.
google for Oracle auditing for more info...
SELECT * FROM all_tab_modifications;
Could you run a checksum of some sort on the result and store that locally? Then when your application queries the database, you can compare its checksum and determine if you should import it?
It looks like you may be able to use the ORA_HASH function to accomplish this.
Update: Another good resource: 10g’s ORA_HASH function to determine if two Oracle tables’ data are equal
Oracle can watch tables for changes and when a change occurs can execute a callback function in PL/SQL or OCI. The callback gets an object that's a collection of tables which changed, and that has a collection of rowid which changed, and the type of action, Ins, upd, del.
So you don't even go to the table, you sit and wait to be called. You'll only go if there are changes to write.
It's called Database Change Notification. It's much simpler than CDC as Justin mentioned, but both require some fancy admin stuff. The good part is that neither of these require changes to the APPLICATION.
The caveat is that CDC is fine for high volume tables, DCN is not.
If the auditing is enabled on the server, just simply use
SELECT *
FROM ALL_TAB_MODIFICATIONS
WHERE TABLE_NAME IN ()
You would need to add a trigger on insert, update, delete that sets a value in another table to sysdate.
When you run application, it would read the value and save it somewhere so that the next time it is run it has a reference to compare.
Would you consider that "Special Admin Stuff"?
It would be better to describe what you're actually doing so you get clearer answers.
How long does the batch process take to write the file? It may be easiest to let it go ahead and then compare the file against a copy of the file from the previous run to see if they are identical.
If any one is still looking for an answer they can use Oracle Database Change Notification feature coming with Oracle 10g. It requires CHANGE NOTIFICATION system privilege. You can register listeners when to trigger a notification back to the application.
Please use the below statement
select * from all_objects ao where ao.OBJECT_TYPE = 'TABLE' and ao.OWNER = 'YOUR_SCHEMA_NAME'
I tried to put it in a sentence but it is better to give an example:
SELECT * FROM someTable WHERE id = someID;
returns no rows
...
some time passes (no inserts are done to the table and no ID updates)
...
SELECT * FROM someTable WHERE id = someID;
returns one row!
Is it possible that some DB mechanism prevents first SELECT to return row?
Oracle log has no errors.
No transactions are rolled back when two selects are executed.
You can't see uncommitted data in another session. When did the commit happen?
EDIT1: Are you the only one using this database? Or did/do you have multiple sessions?
I think in another session you or someone else has inserted this row, you do your select and you don't see this row. After that a commit happens in the other session (maybe implicit because a session is closed) and then you see this row when you select again.
I can think of other explanations, but I first want to know are you only one using this database.
With read consistency as provided by Oracle, you should not see a row appear like that. If you are running in some mode with automatic commits, so that each statement is a self-contained transaction, then read consistency is not being violated. Which program are you using to access the database? I agree with the other observations; the row should not appear if your session is not inserting it and no other session is active at the same time. I don't know of a DBMS that indulges in spontaneous data generation.
Don't you have scheduled jobs in that Oracle?