If I am trying to acquire a lock in Oracle 10g (e.g. with SELECT...FOR UPDATE), there is a NOWAIT option to get an error when the row is locked, instead of the query just hanging. Is there a way to achive this for a simple UPDATE statement? There is a DDL_LOCK_TIMEOUT option in Oracle 11g, I would need something similar for DML operations (and in 10g).
(Background: I have some unit tests which query the database (which is unfortunately not an isolated test database, but a developement DB used for various things), and I want them to throw an error instantly instead of hanging when anything goes wrong.)
No. There is no way to have a simple UPDATE statement in Oracle time out if some other session has locked the row it is trying to update. You could, of course, code your unit tests to do a SELECT ... FOR UPDATE WAIT <<n>> before doing the UPDATE. That would ensure that by the time you got to the UPDATE, you would be guaranteed to already have the lock.
I'm also a bit confused by the idea that you'd be running unit tests against rows that other sessions are modifying at the same time you are. That would seem to defeat the purpose of having unit tests since it would never be clear whether a test failed because the code did something wrong or because some other session modified the data in an unexpected way during the test.
Related
I'm trying to export something using a select statement that runs for a very long time and I've been getting ORA-01555 snapshot too old errors. I searched for this error and it has something to do with select statement using rollback segment "redo tablespace".
How do I select without getting this error? I don't care about the integrity of the results I'm going to get or any other consequences that this may bring about.
Oracle does not allow to read inconsistent results and does not provide the corresponding isolation level "read uncommitted" (if this is an isolation level at all). If you don't care about consistency, you may split the query in several parts (using different where clauses). If you would like to fix the error, you would have to resize the undo tablespace (or change the undo retention) - but this is a job for a DBA (if it is necessary).
In PostgreSQL, if you encounter an error in transaction (for example when your insert statement violates unique constraint), the whole transaction is aborted, you cannot commit it and no rows are inserted:
database=# begin;
BEGIN
database=# insert into table (id, something) values ('1','whatever');
INSERT 0 1
database=# insert into table (id, something) values ('1','whatever');
ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "table_id_key"
Key (id)=(1) already exists.
database=# insert into table (id, something) values ('2','whatever');
ERROR: current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of transaction block
database=# rollback;
database=# select * from table;
id | something |
-----+------------+
(0 rows)
You can change that by setting ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK to "on" or "interactive", after that you can do multiple inserts ignoring errors, commit and have only successfully inserted rows in table after transaction end.
database=# \set ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK interactive
In Oracle, this is the default transaction management behaviour, which surprises me. Isn't this completely counterintuitive and dangerous?
When I start a transaction I want to be sure that all the statements were successfull. What if my multiple inserts comprise some kind of an object or data structure? I end up completely unaware of the data state in my database and should be checking it after the commit.
If one of the inserts fails I want to be sure that other inserts will be rollbacked or not even evaluated after the first error, which is exactly how it's done in PostgreSQL.
Why does Oracle have such way of transaction management as a default, and why is it considered good practice?
For example, some random guy here in comments
This is a very neat feature.
I don't understand this, though: "Normally, any error you make will
throw an exception and cause your current transaction to be marked as
aborted. This is sane and expected behavior..."
No, it's really not. Oracle doesn't work this way, nor does MySQL. I
have no experience with MSSQL or DB2 but I'll bet a dollar each they
don't work this way either. There no intuitive reason why a syntax
error, or any other error for that matter, should abort a transaction.
I can only assume there's either some limitation deep in the Postgres
guts that requires this behavior, or that it conforms to some obscure
part of the SQL standard that everyone else sensibly ignores. There's
certainly no API / UX reason why it should work this way.
We really shouldn't be too proud of any workarounds we've developed
for this pathological behavior. It's like IT Stockholm Syndrome.
Does not it violate even the definition of the transaction?
Transactions provide an "all-or-nothing" proposition, stating that
each work-unit performed in a database must either complete in its
entirety or have no effect whatsoever.
I agree with you. I think it's a mistake not to abort the whole tx. But people are used to that, so they think it's reasonable and correct. Like people who use MySQL think that the DBMS should accept 0000-00-00 as a date, or people using Oracle expect that '' IS NULL.
The idea that there's a clear distinction between a syntax error and something else is flawed.
If I write
BEGIN;
CREATE TABLE new_customers (...);
INSET INTO new_customers (...)
SELECT ... FROM customers;
DROP TABLE customers;
COMMIT;
I don't care that it's a typo resulting in a syntax error that caused me to lose my data. I care that the transaction didn't successfully execute all its statements but still committed.
It'd be technically feasible to allow soft rollback in PostgreSQL before any rows are actually written by a statement - probably before we even enter the executor. So failures in the parse and parameter binding phases could allow the tx not to be aborted. We have a statement memory context we could use to clean up.
However, once the statement starts changing rows, it's doing so on disk with the same transaction ID as the prior statements in the tx. So you can't roll it back without rolling back the whole tx. To allow statement rollback Pg needs to assign a new subtransaction ID. That costs resources. You can do it explicitly with SAVEPOINTs when you want to, and internally that's what psql is doing. In theory we could allow the server to do this implicitly for each statement to implement statement rollback, just at a performance cost. But I doubt any patch implementing this would get committed, at least not without a LOT of argument, because most of the PostgreSQL team are (IMO reasonably) not fond of "whoops, that broke but we'll continue anyway" transaction semantics.
is there a way to know that of the say 100 DDL and DML statement which i am executing through jdbc , is something stuck.
i need to find out for progress bar that in db sql statements are executing and are not hung, so that can inform to user.
Is there a way to find this out.
There are any number of Oracle data dictionary views that you might use given the relatively vague requirements (what, exactly, is your definition of "hung", for example).
I'd probably start, though, with v$session assuming you can identify the sid and serial# of the particular session that you want to monitor (which may be aided by looking at the various columns in v$session). STATUS will tell you whether the session is actively executing a SQL statement at that particular instant. The sql_id will (generally) let you join to v$sqlarea or other views that tell you what statement is currently executing. The event column will tell you what the session is waiting on (i.e. reading from disk, waiting on CPU, waiting to acquire a lock, etc.).
The sql_id from v$session will also let you join to v$sqlstats which periodically updates with things like the amount of logical I/O a particular SQL statement has generated which would let you see that the currently active statement is doing something (whether that something is useful or whether it will terminate in our lifetime would be much more difficult).
Depending on what the code is doing, there may be one or more rows in v$session_longops that you can use to track the progress of longer-running operations-- using this effectively, though, will require that the third-party code issues the sort of long-running SQL operations that Oracle can monitor automatically (i.e. table scans of tables that have a reasonable amount of data) or that the code is instrumented to use v$session_longops to track its own progress.
Depending on what version of Oracle you're using, you might also be able to use the v$sql_monitor view to monitor SQL in real time.
I just created a stored procedure in MS SQL DB using TOAD.
what it does is that it accepts an ID wherein some records are associated with, then it inserts those records to a table.
next part of the stored procedure is to use the ID input to search on the table where the items got inserted and then return it as the result set to the user just to confirm that the information got inserted.
IN TOAD, it does what is expected. It inserts date and returns information using just the stored procedure.
IN Oracle SQL developer however, it does the insert and it ends at that. It seems to not execute the 2nd part of the stored procedure which is a select stmt.
I just have a feeling that this is because of the jdbc adapter. Also why I'm asking is because I'm using a reporting tool Pentaho Report Designer and it would really make it easier if I can do 2 things at the same time. Pentaho Report Designer is also using jdbc adapters, not a coincidence maybe?
But if there are other things that I can tweak I'd really appreciate it.
This is a guess, but worth considering...
There are things called "Batches", where are sets of SQL Statements that are all sent to the server at once, and executed by the server as one set of statements, within a single server-side session. Sending a set of sql statements to the server as a batch will often result in different results than if you sent them one at a time, where each statement is executed in its own session.
I haven't used Toad (or Oracle) in a while, but as I recall, it dealt with batches differently than the other ide I used. If the second statement in your set is relying on being in the same session as the first, and in one ide it is in a separate session, then this might explain what is happening.
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'