Re: Table with 300 columns (ie > 255) : Row Chaining ?

"In other words, the pieces are split and stored in "reverse order". "

I didn't know that. Also, the splilt at the 96th column was the surprise. Why 96 ?
What if the table has 250 columns ? Then it is a single row piece without a split ?
If so, how is 96 a split boundary when the number of columns exceeds 255 ?

Hemant K Chitale
http://hemantoracledba.blogspot.com

At 04:02 PM Monday, Christian Antognini wrote:
>Hi Hemant
>
>This is probably because the split occurs between column 95 and 96. Do a
>block dump to check it... This is because the first row piece is not of
>"full length". In other words, the pieces are split and stored in
>"reverse order". For example, if you have a chained row that is stored
>in two blocks, not only the first column is stored in a block coming
>after the block containing the last row, but in addition the first piece
>is smaller than the second one. Go figure why...
>
>HTH
>Chris
>
>Troubleshooting Oracle Performance, Apress 2008
>http://top.antognini.ch
>--
>http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l