RE: Misbehaving select
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 20:17:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CE70217733273F49A8A162EE074F64D901DC875A_at_exmbx05.thus.corp>
It took me a while to figure out why my replies weren't appearing on Oracle-L, but then it dawned on me that I hadn't been hitting "reply all".
The obvious guess to match the symptoms was that the cluster key chain had got corrupted, so I suggested Jack identify the rowids of the reported 503 and 501 rows and then dump the blocks they came from. Here are the interesting bits from the dump:
The first block was 0xa6934e7a - and here's the entry for cluster key 3 from that block
tab 0, row 3, _at_0x171e
tl: 39 fb: K-H-FL-- lb: 0x0 cc: 4
curc: 48 comc: 48 pk: 0xa72991ba.0 nk: 0xa72991ba.0
col 0: [ 4] c3 06 26 64 col 1: [ 3] c2 06 02 col 2: [ 7] 78 71 09 0a 01 01 01 col 3: [ 2] c1 03
======================
The second block was 0xa72991ba - and here's the entry for cluster key 0 from that block:
tab 0, row 0, _at_0x3f79
tl: 39 fb: K-H-FL-- lb: 0x0 cc: 4
curc: 48 comc: 48 pk: 0xa6934e7a.3 nk: 0xa6934e7a.3
col 0: [ 4] c3 06 26 64 col 1: [ 3] c2 06 04 col 2: [ 7] 78 71 09 0a 01 01 01 col 3: [ 2] c1 02
======================
Check the pk / nk (previous key/next key) entries on each of the entries - they are pointing to each other, even though the stored cluster key values are different. (In particular the first block shows the 501 (c2 06 02), the second shows the 503 (c2 06 04). It's an interesting one byte corruption - hard to imagine how it could have happened.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
From: Jonathan Lewis
Sent: 05 November 2013 08:00
To: jack_at_vanzanen.com; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: RE: Misbehaving select
Is it a hash cluster or an index cluster ?
What is the cluster key ?
What's the index definition for the index being used
Can you report the actual execution plan - including predicate section.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] on behalf of Jack van Zanen [jack_at_vanzanen.com] Sent: 05 November 2013 00:56
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Misbehaving select
Hi All,
Oracle 10.2.0.5
AIX 6.1
We have this select statement on a table that is in a cluster by itself and has an index on it.
if we run the following version of our select it uses the index and returns 2 rows
SELECT distinct(m.channel_number)
FROM table_x m
where m.channel_number=503
and m.metering_system_sid=53799
AND m.gmt_day = to_date('10-09-2013','dd-mm-yyyy')
AND m.VERSION = 1
501 <---- wrong result as we specifically wan t only 503
503
If we force it to use full table scan it returns 1 row
SELECT /*+ full(m) parallel(m 8) */ distinct(m.channel_number)
FROM table_x m
where m.channel_number=503
and m.metering_system_sid=53799
AND m.gmt_day = to_date('10-09-2013','dd-mm-yyyy')
AND m.VERSION = 1
503
Which is correct. this assumes something is not quite right with index, correct?
We have dropped and recreated the index but that was no joy. I have tried to find something on metalink that would point to possible bug, but my searches have not come up with anything worthwhile.
Can anybody else shed some light on this
Jack van Zanen
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Thank you for your cooperation
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Wed Nov 06 2013 - 21:17:52 CET