Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: 8i SQL Plus Edit Question
Comments embedded.
Tim Marshall wrote:
> Server 8.1.7.4.0, SQL Plus 8.1.7.0.0 I'm trying to see if SQL PLus can
> accept more characters in an SQL statement than it does.
>
> I am finished working on a pretty hideous SQL statement that was more
> than 10,000 characters*. I use MS Access as a front end tool against
> our Oracle database, using Oracle SQL (bypassing the Jet database engine
> which is integral to Access). This works fine, but when I come up
> against errors in my SQL that don't jump out at me immediately, I like
> to copy the SQL statement to SQL plus which gives me a line location and
> often a specific pointer to where in a line my error is.
>
> However, SQL Plus won't let me paste the entirity of the long SQL into
> it. When I go to edit mode and paste the full SQL into Notepad and then
> close to return to SQL Plus, it only accepts up to a specific amount of
> characters and drops the rest, giving me a message that line whatever
> has been truncated.
>
> I tried going into the environment menu and setting the screen buffer,
> thinking that might do it, but this only allows me to increase from the
> install default (I think) of 1000 to a max of 2000.
>
> I eventually got the SQL running just fine but I'm wondering if and how
> one can adjust SQL Plus to accept more characters.
>
I cannot believe SQL*Plus is limiting you on the total number of characters in your query. I CAN believe SQL*Plus is limiting the length of a single line. Many of the wrapped package bodies supplied by Oracle greatly exceed this 10,000 character 'limitation' you've apparently stumbled across; character counts for some of the .plb files are listed below:
24419 dbmsaq.plb
61318 dbmsaqds.plb
26699 dbmsaw.plb
11199 dbmsrmin.plb
773060 owmadmb.plb
68939 owmadms.plb
38484 owmaqb.plb
453277 owmcddlb.plb
16501 owmctab.plb 27913 owmctrg.plb 99872 owmctxb.plb 21109 owmctxs.plb 44880 owmcvws.plb 16058 owmd901.plb
37224 owmerrb.plb 13133 owmexpb.plb 813416 owmltb.plb 52440 owmltrb.plb 27070 owmltrs.plb 156276 owmlts.plb 70421 owmmigb.plb 49043 owmprvb.plb
18057 owmv9013.plb 12065 owmv9014.plb 48673 prvtalrt.plb 153293 prvtany.plb
257964 prvtaqim.plb 217124 prvtaqin.plb 325122 prvtaqip.plb 391222 prvtaqis.plb 35734 prvtaqji.plb 36680 prvtaqjm.plb 18311 prvtaqme.plb 35962 prvtaqmi.plb 35076 prvtaqxe.plb
99273 prvtbapp.plb 25582 prvtbath.plb 88327 prvtbcap.plb
24176 prvtbint.plb 14397 prvtbipk.plb 15624 prvtbirp.plb
176031 prvtbrep.plb 846334 prvtbrgt.plb 168063 prvtbrmg.plb 367710 prvtbrpc.plb 100338 prvtbrrq.plb 15777 prvtbrut.plb
106858 prvtbut2.plb 512319 prvtbut3.plb 520471 prvtbut4.plb
45013 prvtbval.plb 22236 prvtcdcp.plb 32163 prvtcdcu.plb 15147 prvtcxml.plb
11942 prvthfla.plb 37564 prvthfut.plb 10131 prvthjob.plb 28509 prvthlin.plb 12255 prvthlrp.plb 14108 prvthlut.plb 30465 prvthmas.plb 14891 prvthobg.plb 13036 prvthoft.plb 25951 prvthout.plb 41102 prvthrgt.plb 85913 prvthrpc.plb
51322 prvthut2.plb 26869 prvthut3.plb 50214 prvthut4.plb
10088 prvtindx.plb 31625 prvtiotc.plb 37546 prvtitrg.plb
156872 prvtlmc.plb 375231 prvtlmd.plb 87999 prvtlmrd.plb
372664 prvtpb.plb 22776 prvtpbp.plb 10131 prvtpbt.plb
24369 prvtpool.plb 153057 prvtpsp.plb 27848 prvtrawb.plb
17148 prvtrlsa.plb 38453 prvtrmad.plb 16686 prvtrmge.plb 29715 prvtrmie.plb 84243 prvtrmin.plb
28563 prvtrmpa.plb 19300 prvtrmpe.plb 11091 prvtrpch.plb
11623 prvtsath.plb 190285 prvtsms.plb 42764 prvtsmtp.plb 135138 prvtsmv.plb
10819 prvtsupp.plb 230449 prvtsxu.plb 17261 prvtsyer.plb
35854 prvtxmlp.plb 48603 prvtxmlt.plb 11858 prvtxpsw.plb 60292 prvtxsch.plb 65668 prvtxslp.plb 15678 prvtzexp.plb 36210 prvtzhlp.plb 1782203 xumuts.plb
All of these run in SQL*Plus; your file, per se, wasn't truncted, just the lines exeeding 255 characters (I believe that is the line length limit).
> Thanks very much in advance for any replies on this.
>
> * Note to file - the extreme (for me) length of this statement was
> because the Oracle app vendor on whose app I am working to write reports
> has really lost their way and dealt with the same data entities in
> completely different ways, depending on whether a single or multiple
> entities is tied to a specific record on a main table. Basically, the
> intended function is to be able to write a single work order against
> either one location (in which case the location PK is written to a PK
> field in the work order table) or multiple locations (you would think
> they would have just used a many to many relationship, but they created
> another entity altogether to represent set "groups" of locations and
> write the group identifier to the work order table in a separate column)
> While the intended functioning of their approach works on screen, it
> makes it virtually impossible for any of their clients to do any
> straighforward analysis of costs.
> --
> Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
> ^o<
> /#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
> /^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me
David Fitzjarrell Received on Wed Sep 28 2005 - 12:32:33 CDT
![]() |
![]() |