I want to know ddl(Eg. adding a column in table) changes for specific user after a specific date in oracle? One strategy is by querying 'user_objects' table. Is there any other way to do this?
Can i also find out what ddl(Eg. added column name in table) changes has been done after specific date?
Version - Oracle Database 12c Standard Edition Release 12.1.0.2.0 - 64bit Production
Audit DDL statements on or before the specified date. Capture DDL statements with a DDL trigger. Use a source control and build management system to track the history of changes. Or, if you happen to have every archived log since the specified date, laboriously go through them looking for DDL statements (this will not be a fun exercise if the specified date isn't really recent).
Otherwise, no. You can certainly look at the last_ddl_time in user_objects. But there are DDL statements that aren't changes (GRANT is a DDL statement for example, PL/SQL objects get recompiled automatically when there is DDL on a dependent object, etc) that will update the last_ddl_time without being what most people would consider a change. Unless you enable auditing, the data dictionary isn't going to be able to tell you what DDL caused the last_ddl_time to change so you won't know whether it was something that you consider a change, whether there were multiple changes, or what those changes are. If you happen to be lucky enough that your new column has an index, you could potentially infer when it was added by looking at the creation date of the associated index.
I recently received a case which my client came across the ORA-00001: unique constraint violated error. This happened when a program tried to truncate two tables and then insert data into them.
From the error-log file, the truncate step was completed,
delete from INTERNET_GROUP
delete from INTERNET_ITEM
BUT right after this, the insertion to the Internet_group table triggered the ORA-00001 error. I am wondering if there is any database settings related to this error? I never used Oracle and am wondering if Oracle puts a lock on a row with SELECT statement, in which case the row is locked and not deleted somehow? Any help is appreciated.
Please know that there is a difference between truncate and delete. You say you truncated the table, but you mention "delete from" . That is entirely different.
If you're sure you want to empty the tables, try replacing with
truncate table internet_group reuse storage;
Mind you that a commit is not necessary with the truncate statement as this is considered a DDL (data definition language) statement and not a DML (Data modification language) statement like updates and deletes.
Also, there is no row locking on selects. But changes are only applied and visible for other sessions in the database when commit-ed.
I guess that is wat happened; you deleted the records but did not execute a commit (yet) and subsequently inserted new records.
edit:
I now realize you're probably inserting multiple records....
The other option might be, that the data itself causes a violation. Can you please provide the constraints on the table? There must be a primary key or unique constraint. You might want to hold that against your dataset.
The SQL command TRUNCATE in Oracle is faster than than DELETE FROM table; in that the TRUNATE comand first drops the specified table in it's entirely and then creates a new table with same structure (clarification may require in case I may be wrong). Since TRUNCATE is a part of DDL it implicitly issues COMMIT before being executed and after the completion of execution. If such is a case then, the table that is dropped by the TRUNCATE command is lost permanently with it's entire structure in the data dictionary. In such a scenario, how is the TRUNCATE command able to drop first the table and recreate the same with the same structure?
(Note that I work for Sybase in SQL Anywhere engineering and my answer comes from my knowledge of how truncate is implemented there, but I imagine it's similar in Oracle as well.)
I don't believe the table is actually dropped and re-created; the contents are simply thrown away. This is much faster than delete from <table> because no triggers need to be executed, and rather than deleting a row at a time (both from the table and the indexes), the server can simply throw away all pages that contain rows for that table and any indexes.
I thought a truncate (amoungst other things) simply reset the High Water Mark.
see: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e17118/statements_10007.htm#SQLRF01707
however in
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/apex/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:2816964500346433991
It is clear that the data segment changes after a truncate.
I have tried to find examples but they are all simple with a single where clause. Here is the situation. I have a bunch of legacy data transferred from another database. I also have the "good" tables in that same database. I need to transfer (data-conversion) data from the legacy tables to thew tables. Because this is a different set of tables the data-conversion requires complex joins to put the old data into the new tables correctly.
So, old tables old data.
New tables must have the old data but it requires lots of joins to get that old data into the new tables correctly.
Can I use direct path with lots of joins like this? INSERT SELECT (lots of joins)
Does direct path apply to tables that are already on the same database (transfer between tables)? Is it only for loading tables from say a text file?
Thank you.
The query in your SELECT can be as complex as you'd like with a direct-path insert. The direct-path refers only to the destination table. It has nothing to do with the way that data is read or processed.
If you're doing a direct-path insert, you're asking Oracle to insert the new data above the high water mark of the table so you bypass the normal code that reuses space in existing blocks for new rows to be inserted. It also has to block other inserts since you can't have the high water mark of the table change during a direct-path insert. This probably isn't a big deal if you've got a downtime window in which to do the load but it would be quite problematic if you wanted the existing tables to be available for other applications during the load.
No, on the contrary, it means you need to do a backup after a NOLOGGING load, not that you can't backup the database.
Allow me to elaborate a bit. Normally, when you do DML in Oracle, the before images of the changes you are are making get logged in UNDO, and all the changes (including the UNDO changes) are first written to REDO. This is how Oracle manages transactions, instance recovery, and database recovery. If a transaction is aborted or rolled back, Oracle uses the information in UNDO to undo the changes your transaction made. If the instance crashes, then on instance restart, Oracle will use the information in REDO and UNDO to recover up to the last committed transaction. First, Oracle will read the REDO and roll forward, then, use UNDO to roll back all the transactions that were not committed at the time of the crash. In this way, Oracle is able to recover up to the last committed transaction.
Now, when you specify an APPEND hint on an insert statement, Oracle will execute the INSERT with direct load. This means that data is loaded into brand new, never before used blocks, from above the highwater mark. Because the blocks being loaded are brand new, there is no "before image", so, Oracle can avoid writing UNDO, which improves performance. If the database is in NOARCHIVELOG mode, then Oracle will also not write REDO. On a database in ARCHIVELOG mode, Oracle will still write REDO, unless, before you do the insert /*+ append */, you set the table to NOLOGGING, (i.e. alter table tab_name nologging;). In that case, REDO logging is disabled for the table. However, this is where you could run into backup/recovery implications. If you do a NOLOGGING direct load, and then you suffer a media failure, and the datafile containing the segment with the nologging operation is restored from a backup taken before the nologging load, then the redo log will not contain the changes required to recover that segment. So, what happens? Well, when you do a NOLOGGING load, Oracle writes extent invaldation records to the redo log, instead of the actual changes. Then, if you use that redo in recovery, those data blocks will be marked logically corrupt. Any subsequent queries against that segment will get an ORA-26040 error.
So, how to avoid this? Well, you should always take a backup imediately following any NOLOGGING direct load. If you restore/recover from a backup taken after the nologging load, there is no problem, because the data will be in the datablocks in the file that was restored.
Hope that's clear,
-Mark
Yes, there should not be any arbitrary limits on query complexity.
If you do
insert /*+ APPEND */ into target_table select .... from source1, source2..., sourceN where
It should work fine. Consider though, that the performance of the load will be limited by the performance of that query, so, be sure it's well-tuned, if you're expecting good performance.
Finally, consider whether setting NOLOGGING on the target table would improve performance significantly. But, also consider the backup recovery implications, if you decide to implement NOLOGGING.
Hope that helps,
-Mark
In Informix, I can do a select from the systables table, and can investigate its version column to see what numeric version a given table has. This column is incremented with every DDL statement that affects the given table. This means I have the ability to see whether a table's structure has changed since the last time I connected.
Is there a similar way to do this in Oracle?
Not really. The Oracle DBA/ALL/USER_OBJECTS view has a LAST_DDL_TIME column, but it is affected by operations other than structure changes.
You can do that (and more) with a DDL trigger that keeps track of changes to tables. There's an interesting article with example here.
If you really want to do so, you'd have to use Oracle's auditing functions to audit the changes. It could be as simple as:
AUDIT ALTER TABLE WHENEVER SUCCESSFUL on [schema I care about];
That would at least capture the successfuly changes, ignoring drops and creates. Unfortunately, unwinding the stack of the table's historical strucuture by mining the audit trail is left as an exercise to the reader in Oracle, or to licensing the Change Management Pack.
You could also roll your own auditing by writing system-event triggers which are invoked on DDL statements. You'd end up having to write your own SQL parser if you really wantedto see what was changing.