Deadlock on a unique index?

I am trying to figure out what is exactly going on during this deadlock situation and i need some help. From the info
from the graph i figured that session 75 is waiting on row in a unique index. From what i am trying to figure out is
are the two sessions trying to insert the same key value and the second session has to wait to see if an ORA-0001 should be raised or not and a deadlock occurs?
Session 75: obj - rowid = 0001B54E - AAAbVOAASAABQ0SAAA
(dictionary objn - 111950, file - 18, block - 331026, slot - 0)
OWNER OBJECT_NAME OBJECT_TYPE
MULTI PK_SEGMENTMEMBER_1 INDEX
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX PK_SEGMENTMEMBER_1 ON SEGMENTMEMBER
(SEGMENTID, ENDUSERID)
--------Dumping Sorted Master Trigger List --------
Trigger Owner : MULTI
Trigger Name : RULE_CACHE
--------Dumping Trigger Sublists --------
trigger sublist 0 :
trigger sublist 1 :
Trigger Owner : MULTI
Trigger Name : RULE_CACHE
trigger sublist 2 :
trigger sublist 3 :
trigger sublist 4 :
Deadlock graph:
---------Blocker(s)-------- ---------Waiter(s)---------
Resource Name process session holds waits process session holds waits
TX-000e0013-0015c871 20 11 X 33 75 S
TX-000b0000-0017d542 33 75 X 20 11 S
session 11: DID 0001-0014-0094ADA4 session 75: DID 0001-0021-003A6568
session 75: DID 0001-0021-003A6568 session 11: DID 0001-0014-0094ADA4
Rows waited on:
Session 11: no row
Session 75: obj - rowid = 0001B54E - AAAbVOAASAABQ0SAAA
(dictionary objn - 111950, file - 18, block - 331026, slot - 0)
----- Information for the OTHER waiting sessions -----
Session 75:
sid: 75 ser: 15873 audsid: 26563927 user: 95/MULTI flags: 0x41
pid: 33 O/S info: user: oracle, term: UNKNOWN, ospid: 13909
image: [email protected]
client details:
O/S info: user: jboss, term: unknown, ospid: 1234
machine: MULTI2.8020solutions.net program: JDBC Thin Client
application name: JDBC Thin Client, hash value=2546894660
current SQL:
MERGE INTO SEGMENTMEMBER A USING (SELECT id enduserid,
decode(MIN(nvl(ruleid, 0)), 0, NULL, min(ruleid)) ruleid,
segmentid
FROM temp_ids
GROUP BY id, segmentid) B
ON (A.ENDUSERID = B.ENDUSERID AND A.SEGMENTID = B.SEGMENTID)
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
INSERT ( A.ENDUSERID,A.RULEID, A.SEGMENTID)
VALUES ( B.ENDUSERID,B.RULEID, B.SEGMENTID)
----- End of information for the OTHER waiting sessions -----
Information for THIS session:
----- Current SQL Statement for this session (sql_id=9utn9atfhzsdz) -----
DELETE FROM RULE WHERE ID IN (SELECT ID FROM UTL_DELETE WHERE TABLENAME = 'RULE')
----- PL/SQL Stack -----
----- PL/SQL Call Stack -----
object line object
handle number name
0xeaaabbd0 20675 package body MULTI.MULTI_DELETE
0xeaaabbd0 20910 package body MULTI.MULTI_DELETE
0xccfa7ed0 1 anonymous block
===================================================
PROCESS STATE
Process global information:
process: 0x11b4d9e20, call: 0x11b892c78, xact: 0x117c891b8, curses: 0x11b610458, usrses: 0x11b610458
SO: 0x11b4d9e20, type: 2, owner: (nil), flag: INIT/-/-/0x00 if: 0x3 c: 0x3
proc=0x11b4d9e20, name=process, file=ksu.h LINE:11459, pg=0
(process) Oracle pid:20, ser:25, calls cur/top: 0x11b892c78/0x11b895a58
flags : (0x0) -
flags2: (0x0), flags3: (0x0)
intr error: 0, call error: 0, sess error: 0, txn error 0
intr queue: empty
ksudlp FALSE at location: 0
(post info) last post received: 0 0 150
last post received-location: kcb2.h LINE:3844 ID:kcbzww
last process to post me: 11b4e7160 41 0
last post sent: 0 0 26
last post sent-location: ksa2.h LINE:282 ID:ksasnd
last process posted by me: 11b4d1c20 1 6
(latch info) wait_event=0 bits=0
Process Group: DEFAULT, pseudo proc: 0x11b56ada0
O/S info: user: oracle, term: UNKNOWN, ospid: 15407
OSD pid info: Unix process pid: 15407, image: [email protected]
Dump of memory from 0x000000011B4B5110 to 0x000000011B4B5318

Thanks damorgan for helping me out. This deadlock appeared a couple of times already.
Here is the result of the view
OBJECT_NAME LOCK_TYPE MODE_HELD MODE_REQUESTED BLOCKING_OTHERS
TAB$ XR Null None Not Blocking
PROXY_ROLE_DATA$ RS Row-S (SS) None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
C_OBJ# CT Exclusive None Not Blocking
C_OBJ# Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
I_OBJ# Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
TAB$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
CLU$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
C_TS# Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
I_TS# Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
C_FILE#_BLOCK# Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
I_FILE#_BLOCK# Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
C_USER# Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
I_USER# Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
FET$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
UET$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
SEG$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
UNDO$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
TS$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
I_SQL$TEXT_HANDLE Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
I_OBJ# Temp Segment Row-X (SX) None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ICOL$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
COL$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
USER$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
SQLOBJ$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
OBJ$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
IND$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
ORA$BASE AE Share None Not Blocking
FILE$ Media Recovery Share None Not Blocking

Similar Messages

Access path difference between Primary Key and Unique Index

Hi All,
Is there any specific way the oracle optimizer treats Primary key and Unique index differently?
Oracle Version
SQL> select * from v$version;
BANNER
Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.2.0.3.0 - 64bit Production
PL/SQL Release 11.2.0.3.0 - Production
CORE    11.2.0.3.0      Production
TNS for IBM/AIX RISC System/6000: Version 11.2.0.3.0 - Production
NLSRTL Version 11.2.0.3.0 - Production
SQL> Sample test data for Normal Index
SQL> create table t_test_tab(col1 number, col2 number, col3 varchar2(12));
Table created.
SQL> create sequence seq_t_test_tab start with 1 increment by 1 ;
Sequence created.
SQL> insert into t_test_tab select seq_t_test_tab.nextval, round(dbms_random.value(1,999)) , 'B'||round(dbms_random.value(1,50))||'A' from dual connect by level < 100000;
99999 rows created.
SQL> commit;
Commit complete.
SQL> exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(USER_OWNER','T_TEST_TAB',cascade => true);
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SQL> select col1 from t_test_tab;
99999 rows selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 1565504962
| Id | Operation         | Name       | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT |            | 99999 |   488K|    74   (3)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T_TEST_TAB | 99999 |   488K|    74   (3)| 00:00:01 |
Statistics
          1 recursive calls
          0 db block gets
       6915 consistent gets
        259 physical reads
          0 redo size
    1829388 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
      73850 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
       6668 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          0 sorts (memory)
          0 sorts (disk)
      99999 rows processed
SQL> create index idx_t_test_tab on t_test_tab(col1);
Index created.
SQL> exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats('USER_OWNER','T_TEST_TAB',cascade => true);
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SQL> select col1 from t_test_tab;
99999 rows selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 1565504962
| Id | Operation         | Name       | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT |            | 99999 |   488K|    74   (3)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T_TEST_TAB | 99999 |   488K|    74   (3)| 00:00:01 |
Statistics
          1 recursive calls
          0 db block gets
       6915 consistent gets
          0 physical reads
          0 redo size
    1829388 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
      73850 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
       6668 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          0 sorts (memory)
          0 sorts (disk)
      99999 rows processed
SQL> Sample test data when using Primary Key
SQL> create table t_test_tab1(col1 number, col2 number, col3 varchar2(12));
Table created.
SQL> create sequence seq_t_test_tab1 start with 1 increment by 1 ;
Sequence created.
SQL> insert into t_test_tab1 select seq_t_test_tab1.nextval, round(dbms_random.value(1,999)) , 'B'||round(dbms_random.value(1,50))||'A' from dual connect by level < 100000;
99999 rows created.
SQL> commit;
Commit complete.
SQL> exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats('USER_OWNER','T_TEST_TAB1',cascade => true);
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SQL> select col1 from t_test_tab1;
99999 rows selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 1727568366
| Id | Operation         | Name        | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT |             | 99999 |   488K|    74   (3)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T_TEST_TAB1 | 99999 |   488K|    74   (3)| 00:00:01 |
Statistics
          1 recursive calls
          0 db block gets
       6915 consistent gets
          0 physical reads
          0 redo size
    1829388 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
      73850 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
       6668 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          0 sorts (memory)
          0 sorts (disk)
      99999 rows processed
SQL> alter table t_test_tab1 add constraint pk_t_test_tab1 primary key (col1);
Table altered.
SQL> exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats('USER_OWNER','T_TEST_TAB1',cascade => true);
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SQL> select col1 from t_test_tab1;
99999 rows selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 2995826579
| Id | Operation            | Name           | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT     |                | 99999 |   488K|    59   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 | INDEX FAST FULL SCAN| PK_T_TEST_TAB1 | 99999 |   488K|    59   (2)| 00:00:01 |
Statistics
          1 recursive calls
          0 db block gets
       6867 consistent gets
          0 physical reads
          0 redo size
    1829388 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
      73850 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
       6668 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          0 sorts (memory)
          0 sorts (disk)
      99999 rows processed
SQL> If you see here the even though statistics were gathered,
     * In the 1st table T_TEST_TAB, the table is still using FULL table access after creation of index.
     * And in the 2nd table T_TEST_TAB1, table is using PRIMARY KEY as expected.
Any comments ??
Regards,
BPat

Thanks.
Yes, ignored the NOT NULL part.Did a test and now it is working as expected
SQL> create table t_test_tab(col1 number not null, col2 number, col3 varchar2(12));
Table created.
SQL>
create sequence seq_t_test_tab start with 1 increment by 1 ;SQL>
Sequence created.
SQL> insert into t_test_tab select seq_t_test_tab.nextval, round(dbms_random.value(1,999)) , 'B'||round(dbms_random.value(1,50))||'A' from dual connect by level < 100000;
99999 rows created.
SQL> commit;
Commit complete.
SQL> exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats('GREP_OWNER','T_TEST_TAB',cascade => true);
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SQL> set autotrace traceonly
SQL> select col1 from t_test_tab;
99999 rows selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 1565504962
| Id | Operation         | Name       | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT |            | 99999 |   488K|    74   (3)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T_TEST_TAB | 99999 |   488K|    74   (3)| 00:00:01 |
Statistics
          1 recursive calls
          0 db block gets
       6912 consistent gets
          0 physical reads
          0 redo size
    1829388 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
      73850 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
       6668 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          0 sorts (memory)
          0 sorts (disk)
      99999 rows processed
SQL> create index idx_t_test_tab on t_test_tab(col1);
Index created.
SQL> exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats('GREP_OWNER','T_TEST_TAB',cascade => true);
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SQL> select col1 from t_test_tab;
99999 rows selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 4115006285
| Id | Operation            | Name           | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT     |                | 99999 |   488K|    63   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 | INDEX FAST FULL SCAN| IDX_T_TEST_TAB | 99999 |   488K|    63   (2)| 00:00:01 |
Statistics
          1 recursive calls
          0 db block gets
       6881 consistent gets
          0 physical reads
          0 redo size
    1829388 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
      73850 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
       6668 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          0 sorts (memory)
          0 sorts (disk)
      99999 rows processed
SQL>

Difference between Unique key and Unique index

Hi All,
I've got confused in the difference between unique index & unique key in a table.
While we create a unique index on a table, its created as a unique index.
On the other hand, if we create a unique key/constraint on the table, Oracle also creates an index entry for that. So I can find the same name object in all_constraints as well as in all_indexes.
My question here is that if during creation of unique key/constraint, an index is automatically created than why is the need to create unique key and then two objects , while we can create only one object i.e. unique index.
Thanks
Deepak

This is only my understanding and is not according to any documentation, that is as follows.
The unique key (constraint) needs an unique index for achieving constraint of itself.
Developers and users can make any constraint (unique-key, primary-key, foreign-key, not-null ...) to enable,disable and be deferable. Unique key is able to be enabled, disabled, deferable.
On the other hand, the index is used for performance-up originally, unique index itself doesn't have the concept like constraints. The index (including non-unique, unique) can be rebuilded,enabled,disabled etc. But I think that index cannot be set "deferable-builded" automatic.

Difference between unique constraint and unique index

1. What is the difference between unique constraint and unique index when unique constraint is always indexed ? Which one is better in this case for better performance ?
2. Is Composite index of 3 columns x,y,z better
or having independent/ seperate indexes on 3 columns x,y,z is better for better performance ?
3. It has been very confusing for me to decide which columns to index, I have indexed most foreignkey columns, is it a good idea ? We do lot of selects and DMLS on most of our tables. Is there any query that I can run and find out if indexes are really being used and if they are improving any performance. I have analyzed and computed my indexes using ANALYZE index index_name validate structure and COMPUTE STATISTICS;
null

1. Unique index is part of unique constraint. Of course you can create standalone unique index. But is is no point to skip the logical view of business if you spend same effort to achive.
You create unique const. Oracle create the unique index for you. You may specify index characteristic in unique constraint.
2. Depends. You can't utilize the composite index if the searching condition is not whole or front part of the indexing key. You can't utilize your index if you query the table for y=2. That is.
3. As old words in database arena, Index may be good or bad for a table depending on the size of table, number of columns in the table... etc. It is very environmental dependent. In fact, It is part of database nomalization. Statistic is a way oracle use to determine the execution plan.
Steve
null

Difference Between Unique Index vs Unique Constraint

Can you tell me
what is the Difference Between Unique Index vs Unique Constraint.
and
Difference Between Unique Index and bitmap index.
Edited by: Nilesh Hole,Pune, India on Aug 22, 2009 10:33 AM

Nilesh Hole,Pune, India wrote:
Can you tell me
what is the Difference Between Unique Index vs Unique Constraint.http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/uk_idx_con.html
and
Difference Between Unique Index and bitmap index.The documentation is your friend:
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/schema.htm#CNCPT1157
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14220/schema.htm#sthref1008
Regards,
Rob.

Unique index vs non-unique index

Hi Gurus,
I'm getting lots of "TABLE ACCESS FULL" for lots of columns which have non-unique indexes is some queries. So my question is does optimizer does not pick up non-unique index but only pickes up unique indexes for those columns.
Thanks
Amitava.

amitavachatterjee1975 wrote:
Hi Gurus,
I'm getting lots of "TABLE ACCESS FULL" for lots of columns which have non-unique indexes is some queries. So my question is does optimizer does not pick up non-unique index but only pickes up unique indexes for those columns.
Thanks
Amitava.WHY MY INDEX IS NOT BEING USED
http://communities.bmc.com/communities/docs/DOC-10031
http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/tip/Why-isn-t-my-index-getting-used
http://www.orafaq.com/tuningguide/not%20using%20index.html

Unique Index vs. Unique Constraint

Hi All,
I'm studying for the Oracle SQL Expert Certification. At one point in the book, while talking about indices, the author says that a unique index is not the same a unique constraint. However, he doesn't explain why they're two different things.
Could anyone clarify the difference between the two, please?
Thanks a lot,
Valerio

A constraint has different meaning to an index. It gives the optimiser more information and allows you to have foreign keys on the column, whereas a unique index doesn't.
eg:
SQL> create table t1 (col1 number, col2 varchar2(20), constraint t1_uq unique (col1));
Table created.
SQL> create table t2 (col1 number, col2 varchar2(20));
Table created.
SQL> create unique index t2_idx on t2 (col1);
Index created.
SQL> create table t3 (col1 number, col2 number, col3 varchar2(20), constraint t3_fk
2                   foreign key (col2) references t1 (col1));
Table created.
SQL> create table t4 (col1 number, col2 number, col3 varchar2(20), constraint t4_fk
2                   foreign key (col2) references t2 (col1));
                 foreign key (col2) references t2 (col1))
ERROR at line 2:
ORA-02270: no matching unique or primary key for this column-listIt's like saying "What's the difference between a car seat and an armchair? They both allow you to sit down!"

Can we change the fields of database unique index in a customised table?

Hi all..
I want to know that can we create or change or delete the database unique index of a customized table?
In my case, there is a customised table with 4 primary keys with all the records to be maintained thru transaction code SM30.
There is database unique index maintained for this table which has 2 fields. These 2 fields are out of the 4 primary fields of the table.I hope I have made myself clear!
Now when I am trying to insert a record in the table it give me a short dump.( It says duplication of records is not allowed)
The reason being that the new record that I am trying to insert in the database table has those 2 fields for which the unique index is maintained is the same as an already existing record.And the other two fields are different from the already existing record.So overall the combination of the 4 primary fields is different.
Please tell me how shall I proceed now?
I also tried to change the Unique index but it is asking me some kind of authrization(You are not authorized to make changes (authorization object S_DEVELOP)).Also I am not sure whether changing the unique index is feasible or not.?
Thanks.

hi
I think you will not be able to do unique indexing withou the help of primary keys,so use all the primary keys into the table field selections and and then create indexing otherwise dupilication of keys can occur. if you are not able to keep the primary keys then go for non unique key indexing,where you have to add the client field and the any keys of your wish.

Error while creating the Unique Index of the Primary Key of an Item

Hi all,
I have deployed a new item (CO_CONTRACTUNIT_PRODUCT) in my publication. The deploy appears to be successfull as the item can be seen in the repository through the Mobile Manager.
The problem occurs when i sync my local DB to get the item offline. While synchronizing, the following error appears, both in the sync window and the log file ol_sync.log.
"ERROR",POL-5130,"11/09/2010 11:43:52","table or view %s.%s not found:CO_CONTRACTUNIT_PRODUCT,CO_CONTRACTID,OD_PRODUCTID,CO_CONTRACTUNITID","DB_ROSHNI"
However, the debug file gives this other error regarding this table.
ALL_INDEX:CREATE UNIQUE INDEX "TPCO_CONTRACTUNIT_PRODUCT_PK" ON CO_CONTRACTUNIT_PRODUCT (CO_CONTRACTID,OD_PRODUCTID,CO_CONTRACTUNITID) -5130Error at C:\ADE\omeprod_ol103021\olite\db\build\win\ocapi\..\..\..\src\ocapi\allindexes.cpp line:329 rc:-5130
Build date Mar 29 2010
okErr=(table or view %s.%s not found)
mess=(CO_CONTRACTUNIT_PRODUCT,CO_CONTRACTID,OD_PRODUCTID,CO_CONTRACTUNITID)
AddLog(-5130 "ERROR",POL-5130,"11/09/2010 11:43:52","table or view %s.%s not found:CO_CONTRACTUNIT_PRODUCT,CO_CONTRACTID,OD_PRODUCTID,CO_CONTRACTUNITID","DB_ROSHNI")
But the index that is being created and is giving the error is the index created automatically with the Primary Key of the table, and so nothing has been modified in that.
The primary key of the table is created with the three columns that are part of the index that is returning the error.
As I could not solve the error, I tried to drop and re-create the item in the repository, but no luck. As a last option, i tried to remove the item from the repository to be able to sync properly again (just like before creating the item), but the error still happens.
Another weird point is that i have tried creating the item in another publication of another database (but with almost equal items), and the item could was downloaded to my local DB without any problem, which makes this problem still more bizarre.
What can it be?
Any help would be great!
Roshni

have you tried unistalling the client and reinstalling it?
schema evolution changes are not always handled correctly please check thread:
Modification of publication item into Mobile Server
i quote from rekounas instructions:
If you are just adding a field, you should only have to run the alter publication item API call.
Here is an old note on schema evolution on different scenarios. The names for the APIs that they use are now deprecated. Use the ConsolidatorManager class and call the method alterPublicationItem("PUBLICATION_ITEM_NAME", "SELECT STMT") :
A) Add column
1. Upload all client data. Clients should not add new data until they are told by the administrator to sync again!!
2. Stop Mobile Server listener
3. Change the Oracle8i/9i database schema (add column)
4. Create a Java program to call the Consolidator Admin API AlterPublicationItem()
5. Start Mobile Server
6. Execute a sync from the client
7. The new column should be seen on the client. Use MSQL to check snapshot definitions.
B) Drop column
1. Upload all client data. Clients should not add new data until they are told by the administrator to sync again!!
2. Stop Mobile Server listener
3. Delete column of the base table in the Oracle database schema
4. Create a Java program to call the Consolidator Admin API DropPublicationItem()
5. Create a Java program to call the Consolidator Admin API CreatePublicationItem() and AddPublicationItem().
6. Start Mobile Server
7. Execute a sync from the client
8. The new column should be seen on the cliet. Use MSQL to check snapshot definitions.
C) Change column datatype
Changing datatypes in a repliatated system is not an easy task. You have to follow certain procedures in order to make it to work. Use DropPublicationItem, CreatePublicationItem and AddPublicationItem methods from the Consolidator Admin API. You must stop/start Mobile Server listener to refresh the cache.
1. Client syncs. Clients should not add new data until they are told by the administrator to sync again!!
2. Stop Mobile Server listener
3. Drop/create column (do not use conversion procudures) at the base table
4. Call DropPublicationItem(). Check if the ErrorQueue and InQueue no longer exist.
5. Call CreatePublicationItem() and AddPublicationItem(). Check if the ErrorQueue and InQueue reflect the new column datatype
6. Start Mobile Server. This automatically resumes application
7. Client executes sync. This should drop the old snapshot and recreate the new snapshot. Use MSQL to check
snapshot definitions.
D) Drop table
1. Client syncs. Clients should not add new data until they are told by the administrator to sync again!!
2. Stop Mobile Server listener
3. Drop base table
4. Call DropPublicationItem(). Check if the ErrorQueue and InQueue no longer exist.
5. Start Mobile Server. This automatically resumes application
6. Client executes sync. This should drop the old snapshot. Use MSQL to check snapshot definitions.
E) Add table
1. Client syncs. Clients should not add new data until they are told by the administrator to sync again!!
2. Stop Mobile Server listener
3. Add new base table
4. Call CreatePublicationItem() and AddPublicationItem() method
5. Start Mobile Server. This automatically resumes application
6. Client executes sync. This should add the new snapshot. Use MSQL to check snapshot definitions.
F) Changing Primary Keys
Chaning PK is a severe operation which must be executed manually. A snapshot must be deleted and recreated to propagate the changes to the clients. This causes a full refresh on this snapshot.
1. Client syncs. Clients should not add new data until they are told by the administrator to sync again!!
2. Stop Mobile Server listener
3. Drop the snapshot using DropPublicationItem() method o
4. Alter the base table
5. Call CreatePublicationItem()and AddPublicationItem() methods for the altered table
6. Start Mobile Server. This automatically resumes application
7. Client executes sync. The old snapshot will be replaced by the new snapstot using a full refresh. Use MSQL to check snapshot definitions.
G) To Change a Table Weight =>
Follow the procedure below to change the Table Weight parameter. The table weight is used by the Mobile Server/Synchronization to determin the sequence in which client records are applied to the Oracle database.
1. Run MGP to apply any changes in the InQueue to the Oracle databse
2. Change table weight using SetTemplateItemMetadata() method
3. Add/change constraint on the the base table which reflects the change in table weight
4. Synchronize
gl m8

Unique Index Error while running the ETL process

Hi,
I have Installed Oracle BI Applications 7.9.4 and Informatica PowerCenter 7.1.4. I have done all the configuration steps as specified in the Oracle BI Applications Installation and Configuration Guide. While running the ETL process from DAC for Execution Plan 'Human Resources Oracle 11.5.10' some tasks going to status Failed.
When I checked the log files for these tasks, I found the following error
ANOMALY INFO::: Error while executing : CREATE INDEX:W_PAYROLL_F_ASSG_TMP:W_PRL_F_ASG_TMP_U1
MESSAGE:::java.lang.Exception: Error while execution : CREATE UNIQUE INDEX
W_PRL_F_ASG_TMP_U1
ON
W_PAYROLL_F_ASSG_TMP
INTEGRATION_ID ASC
,DATASOURCE_NUM_ID ASC
,EFFECTIVE_FROM_DT ASC
NOLOGGING PARALLEL
with error java.sql.SQLException: ORA-12801: error signaled in parallel query server P000
ORA-01452: cannot CREATE UNIQUE INDEX; duplicate keys found
EXCEPTION CLASS::: java.lang.Exception
I found some duplicate rows in the table W_PAYROLL_F_ASSG_TMP with the combination of the columns on which it is trying to create INDEX. Can anyone give me information for the following.
1. Why it is trying to create the unique index on the combination of columns which may not be unique.
2. Is it a problem with the data in the source database (means becoz of duplicate rows in the source system).
How we need to fix this error. Do we need to delete the duplicate rows from the table in the data warehouse manually and re-run the ETL process or is there any other way to fix the problem.

This query will identify the duplicate in the Warehouse table preventing the Index from being built:
select count(*), integration_id, src_eff_from_dt from w_employee_ds group by integration_id, src_eff_from_dt having count(*)>1;
To get the ETL to finish issue this delete to the W_EMPLOYEE_DS table:
delete from w_employee_ds where integration_id = '2' and src_eff_from_dt ='04-JAN-91';
To fix it so this does not happen again on another load you need to find the record in the Vision DB, it is in the PER_ALL_PEOPLE_F table. I have a Vision source and this worked:
select rowid, person_id , LAST_NAME FROM PER_ALL_PEOPLE_F
where EFFECTIVE_START_DATE = '04-JAN-91';
ROWID PERSON_ID
LAST_NAME
AAAWXJAAMAAAwl/AAL 6272
Kang
AAAWXJAAMAAAwmAAAI 6272
Kang
AAAWXJAAMAAAwmAAA4 6307
Lee
delete from PER_ALL_PEOPLE_F
where ROWID = 'AAAWXJAAMAAAwl/AAL';

UNIQUE INDEX and PRIMARY KEYS

Hi Friends,
I am confused about primary keys.
What is the purpose of this key again? I know it is used for unique constraints.
Supposing I have a table with two (2) columns which are each indexed as unique.
Then they can me both candidate at primary key right?
So why do I need a primary key again? when I have 2 columns which are uniquely index?
Thanks a lot

A UNIQUE index creates a constraint such that all values in the index must be distinct. An error occurs if you try to add a new row with a key value that matches an existing row. This constraint does not apply to NULL values except for the BDB storage engine. For other engines, a UNIQUE index allows multiple NULL values for columns that can contain NULL
The differences between the two are:
1. Column(s) that make the Primary Key of a table cannot be NULL since by definition; the Primary Key cannot be NULL since it helps uniquely identify the record in the table. The column(s) that make up the unique index can be nullable. A note worth mentioning over here is that different RDBMS treat this differently –> while SQL Server and DB2 do not allow more than one NULL value in a unique index column, Oracle allows multiple NULL values. That is one of the things to look out for when designing/developing/porting applications across RDBMS.
2. There can be only one Primary Key defined on the table where as you can have many unique indexes defined on the table (if needed).
3. Also, in the case of SQL Server, if you go with the default options then a Primary Key is created as a clustered index while the unique index (constraint) is created as a non-clustered index. This is just the default behavior though and can be changed at creation time, if needed.
So, if the unique index is defined on not null column(s), then it is essentially the same as the Primary Key and can be treated as an alternate key meaning it can also serve the purpose of identifying a record uniquely in the table.

Unique Index Created Automatically on FK Columns

Referencing the following document under Forward Engineering, http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer-tools/datamodeler/newfeatures30-224506.html
Unique index is created for One-to-one relationships defined in the Logical model if there is no PK/UK constraint or unique index defined over foreign key columns.
Why are unique indexes created automatically for foreign key columns? Should "lookups" not be defined in the logical model? I don't understand why it's designed to behave that way.

Why are unique indexes created automatically for foreign key columns? They are created automatically only for 1:1 relationships in order to support that business rule.
Should "lookups" not be defined in the logical model? Can you elaborate on that?
Philip

BizTalk 2006 Event Log Warnings - Cannot insert duplicate key row in object 'dta_MessageFieldValues' with unique index 'IX_MessageFieldValues'.

We have been seeing the following 'warnings' in the event log of our BizTalk machine since upgrading to BTS 2006. They seem to occur randomly 6 or 8 times per day.
Does anyone know what this means and what needs to be done to clear it up? we have only one BizTalk server which is running on only one machine.
I am new to BizTalk, so I am unable to find how many tracking host instances running for BizTalk server. Also, can you please let me know that we can configure only one instance for one server/machine?
Source: BAM EventBus Service
Event: 5
Warning Details: Execute batch error. Exception information: TDDS failed to batch execution of streams. SQLServer: bizprod, Database: BizTalkDTADb.Cannot insert duplicate key row in object 'dta_MessageFieldValues'
with unique index 'IX_MessageFieldValues'. The statement has been terminated..

Other than ensuring that there exists a separate and single tracking host instance, you're getting an error about duplicate keys.. which implies that you're trying to Create a BAM Activity twice with the same data.
I suggest you have a in-depth examination of the BAM (TPE or API) associated with the orchestration. In TPE ensure that the first binding you select is the "Instance Id" or "Message Id" before going ahead to map the ports or others.
Regards.

The record has duplicate key values - "Include in Unique Index" checkbox missing

I have a Silverlight client app that I'm developing in Lightswitch in VS2013 Ultimate Update 1, and have run into a problem when adding records.
I am working against an external SQL Server 2008 database, and the table in question only has the primary key constraint, meaning that the ID field is an identity field, set as the primary key.
When I try and add records to the table from the app, I get an error "The Shiur record has duplicate key values." This seems to happen when I add a row that has the same Speaker as an existing one. If I add one with a new Speaker then
it inserts OK.
Whilst searching for information on this error, I saw many comments around about there being a problem in earlier releases with the "Include in Unique Index" not working properly. This looked like my problem, except for two points...
1) This table doesn't have anything in a unique index (as far as I know), as I never set it up to have any. You can see the details here...
This looks to me like there is only the one index, which is the primary key one.
2) The "Include in Unique Index" checkbox doesn't appear on my Properties panel at all. If I open the table in the designer, then click in the Speaker row, I don't see "Include in Unique Index" at all...
Actually, I don't see "Include in Unique Index" at all, irrespective of what I click. It's just not there.
So, I don't seem to have a unqiue constraint to violate, and VS doesn't show me the "Include in Unique Index" to allow me to check this, but I still get the error on insert. Anyone any ideas what's going on here?
Thanks
FREE custom controls for Lightswitch! A collection of useful controls for Lightswitch developers.
Download from the Visual Studio Gallery.
If you're really bored, you could read about my experiments with .NET and some of Microsoft's newer technologies at
http://dotnetwhatnot.pixata.co.uk/

Hi Alan,
'Include in Unique Index' is for intrinsic database entity properties.
Ah, that explains why I can't see it then :)
Is LightSwitch or SQL throwing the error?
Ah, you're a genius! Well, not quite, but your question led me to the answer.
For some odd reason, the primary key fields on my tables seem to have lost their identity setting, so when it tried to insert a new record, the ID wasn't automatically increased, so was going in as zero. This worked fine for the first insert, as there wasn't
a record with zero ID, but failed for the second.
Changed the ID fields to be identity, and all works fine now :)
Thanks very much.
FREE custom controls for Lightswitch! A collection of useful controls for Lightswitch developers.
Download from the Visual Studio Gallery.
If you're really bored, you could read about my experiments with .NET and some of Microsoft's newer technologies at
http://dotnetwhatnot.pixata.co.uk/

Using UNUSABLE on Unique Index gives "initially in unusable state" error

I am doing the following:
1. Truncate table
2 Alter PK Index Disable
2. Alter Unique Index Unusable
3. Insert /*+ APPEND NOLOGGING*/ into my table
My problem is, I get an "ORA-26026: unique index ... initially in unusable state" error when I try to do the Insert. If I make the Unique index non-unique it isn't a problem. If I drop the index and recreate it its not a problem - so uniqueness doesn't appear to be the issue. Can you not use UNUSABLE with a Unique index, I couldn't find any reference to this in the 10g docs.
I am using 10.1.0.4.
Thanks
Richard

26026, 0000, "unique index %s.%s initially in unusable state"
//* Cause: A unique index is in IU state (a unique index cannot have
//* index maintenance skipped via SKIP_UNUSABLE_INDEXES).
//* Action: Either rebuild the index or index partition, or use
//* SKIP_INDEX_MAINTENANCE if the client is SQL*Loader.

Deadlock on a unique index?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for