Handeling more than 1000 columns in where clause

Hi,
I am using oracle 9i. We are creating a select query and adding where clause at runtime.
The no of clolumns in where clause depends on the results from another enterprise app. There may be any no of columns from 0-N. Till 1000 columns every thing works fine but when it goes beyond 1000 it gives the following error:
ERROR:
java.sql.SQLException: ORA-01795: maximum number of expressions in a list is 100
0
at oracle.jdbc.dbaccess.DBError.throwSqlException(DBError.java:134)
at oracle.jdbc.oci8.OCIDBAccess.check_error(OCIDBAccess.java:2321)
at oracle.jdbc.oci8.OCIDBAccess.parseExecuteDescribe(OCIDBAccess.java:12
55)
at oracle.jdbc.driver.OracleStatement.doExecuteQuery(OracleStatement.jav
a:2391)
at oracle.jdbc.driver.OracleStatement.doExecuteWithTimeout(OracleStateme
nt.java:2672)
at oracle.jdbc.driver.OracleStatement.executeQuery(OracleStatement.java:
572)
Please help.
Thanks in advance.

Thanks Archana,
You are right.
I think i have not framed my question right.
Actually its problem with "IN", which i am using in where clause. It working properly till 1000 expressions like "select * from foo where fooid in (n0,n1,n2......,n1000)".
But throwing exception once the count increases to 1000 like
"select * from foo where fooid in (n0,n1,n2......,n1000,n1001,n1002)".
Thanks,
Mukesh

Similar Messages

More than 1000 columns

In which database i can create more than 1000 columns in a table

Hi.
I can´t imagine a problem in the real life where you need such number of columns.
I can´t imagine how you will administer such object.
I think that you don´t know the database normalization concept.
There are a lot of documentation out there about this concept, search in the web "database normalization" and take a minute for reading.
Regards.
Daniel
[If you think my writing is bad, you must listen to me speaking! ;-) ]

ORA-24335 - cannot support more than 1000 columns - How to solve this?

Hi,
I got error message 'ORA-24335 - cannot support more than 1000 columns ' when i try to insert x no of rows for a table with following code:
INSERT ALL
INTO tableA Values ('A', 'B', 'C', 1, 2, 3)
INTO tableA Values ('D', 'E', 'F', 4, 5, 6)
INTO tableA Values ('G', 'H', 'I', 7, 8, 9)
SELECT *
FROM DUAL
How to solve above?
What does it really mean? It's not as easy as if my table has 10 columns than I can't insert more than 100 rows (1000 columns divided with 10 columns = maximun 100 rows to insert), or?
Is there a better/more appropriate way to do insert many rows?
Should I do my inserts with an OracleTransaction (My application is developed with C# and asp.net), as ~follows
BEGIN
INSERT INTO tableA Values ('A', 'B', 'C', 1, 2, 3)
INSERT INTO tableA Values ('D', 'E', 'F', 4, 5, 6)
INSERT INTO tableA Values ('G', 'H', 'I', 7, 8, 9)
COMMIT
END
Thx in advance!
Edited by: user8819407 on 2010-mar-07 15:40

Hi,
So how did you solve the problem? Can you please give an example?
I have the same problem inserting over 1000 values into my Oracle DB. The table only has 51 columns but to speed up the insert command, I use bulk inserts via insert all command. I need to insert 100 rows at a time for a total of 5100 values.
Example:
SQLCmd = INSERT ALL INTO MYTABLE (VAL_ID,VAL_NAME,VAL_NUM,VAL_TIME,VAL_CMM,VAL_TIME1,VAL_TRIP,VAL_REMAINING,VAL_AGE,VAL_COUNT,VAL_RSTS,VAL_VOLT,VAL_RF,VAL_DC,VAL_HOPS,VAL_STATUS,VAL_ELAPSED,MODIFY_TIME) VALUES (?,?,?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,SYSTIMESTAMP)
INTO MYTABLE (VAL_ID,VAL_NAME,VAL_NUM,VAL_TIME,VAL_CMM,VAL_TIME1,VAL_TRIP,VAL_REMAINING,VAL_AGE,VAL_COUNT,VAL_RSTS,VAL_VOLT,VAL_RF,VAL_DC,VAL_HOPS,VAL_STATUS,VAL_ELAPSED,MODIFY_TIME) VALUES (?,?,?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,SYSTIMESTAMP)
INTO MYTABLE (VAL_ID,VAL_NAME,VAL_NUM,VAL_TIME,VAL_CMM,VAL_TIME1,VAL_TRIP,VAL_REMAINING,VAL_AGE,VAL_COUNT,VAL_RSTS,VAL_VOLT,VAL_RF,VAL_DC,VAL_HOPS,VAL_STATUS,VAL_ELAPSED,MODIFY_TIME) VALUES (?,?,?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,SYSTIMESTAMP)
INTO MYTABLE (VAL_ID,VAL_NAME,VAL_NUM,VAL_TIME,VAL_CMM,VAL_TIME1,VAL_TRIP,VAL_REMAINING,VAL_AGE,VAL_COUNT,VAL_RSTS,VAL_VOLT,VAL_RF,VAL_DC,VAL_HOPS,VAL_STATUS,VAL_ELAPSED,MODIFY_TIME) VALUES (?,?,?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,SYSTIMESTAMP)
SELECT 1 FROM DUAL
SQLVals = 1 22C38299 80700334 04-19-2012 13:55:33 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss MCC93000 04/19/2012 13:55:42 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss 12 4 0.792191 23 1 0.00 -113.50 13.48 9 1 9
1 36PR7038 8070EDC2 04-19-2012 12:24:35 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss MCC60360 04/19/2012 12:24:41 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss 7 4 0.757501 3 2 13.88 -114.80 14.06 5 1 6
1 42C63512 8050166F 04-19-2012 16:02:50 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss MCC52420 04/19/2012 16:02:57 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss 10 4 0.778471 8 1 0.00 -122.30 13.05 8 1 7
1 33MR3076 80803E75 04-19-2012 13:13:16 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss MCC60330 04/19/2012 13:13:22 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss 13 5 0.636721 28 3 0.00 -122.19 0.70 8 1 6
Then I call: &DBInsert($sqlCmd, @sqlVals);
This is the error I get: ORA-24335: cannot support more than 1000 columns.
I need to insert about 879,500 rows (51 cols per row). The values I read from a text file in sets of about 48,000 and put them into a hash. I tried inserting one row at a time, but it takes too long, about 28 hrs! Then, I tried the bulk update with only 6 rows and the total time was about 25 minutes. Which is acceptable to us.
Thanks!

How to pass more than 1000 entries in 'IN' clause, Oracle 11g

Hi All,
I know this is a very common question in Oracle discussion forum. But, Im in different zone.
I use C#, .NET and Oracle 11g. I have a situation where I will create a query statement using 'IN' clause in C# code based on my requirement and execute that statement from code itself with oracle connection object. I do not have any procedures. I must phrase my query statement and pass it on to OracleConnection object to execute it.
My code looks like this....
List<decimal> x_Ids = new List<decimal>();
I will load my IDs into x_Ids here;
string whereInClause = ........I will prepare a 'IN' clause (All IDs separated by ',')
My query would looks like this....
string query = select * from MYTABLE where X_ID in [ whereInClause with more than 1000 entries]
oraConn.ExecuteQuery(query);
I have a workaround with OR operator with 'IN' clause like below.
X_ID in [ Ids till 1000 entries] OR X_ID in [Next 1000 entries] OR X_ID in [Next 1000 entries] ....so on.....
It is working, but, I heard that this may slowdown the performance of the application. Is this really a performance hit to my application?
Can you please suggest any other workaround to overcome this situation?

>
I have a workaround with OR operator with 'IN' clause like below.
X_ID in [ Ids till 1000 entries] OR X_ID in [Next 1000 entries] OR X_ID in [Next 1000 entries] ....so on.....
It is working, but, I heard that this may slowdown the performance of the application. Is this really a performance hit to my application?There should be no performance difference between a statement like
select * from myTab
where ID in (1,2,3,4,5)
OR ID in (6,7,8,10,12) and
select * from myTab
where ID in (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12) The execution plan should be identical.
However those values might better be send as a single object (collection or table of numbers type).
I think the ODP or OO4O connectivity allows to create and such oracle object types.
Another way could be to think about how all the values are created? Did any user enter them manually? Certainly not. Then maybe you can apply the same logic to the SQL statement that created those values in your .Net application.
something like
select * from myTab
where ID in (select t2.FK_ID from otherTab t2 where t2.Col1 = 100) This approach would probably beat all others performancewise. Since you avoid the overhead of constructing the in-lists.

More than 1000 record in IN clause

RDBMS : Oracle 10.2
OS : CentOS 5
Hi,
I have a situation where I have to compare more than 1000 ids in my IN clause.
I have used something like
slect col,col2....
from tble ......
where .....
and id in (--first 1000 ids ---)
or id in (--next 1000 ids ---);
the query is taking a lot time. If I omit second IN clause, it executes instantly .
Can you please suggest how to handle such situation ?

Take your full list of 2000 ids, paste them into a program like Notepad++ (or even regular notepad) then use the replace function to replace all commas with: " from dual union all select ". Add "with a as (select " to the front and " from dual)" to the end also add an alias like aid to the first item in the list. Paste that on the front of your query and change your "in" clause to say "id in (select aid from a)"
Then instead of this:
select col,col2
from tble
where id in (1,2,3,4,5);you'll use this:
with a as (select 1 aid from dual union all
           select 2 from dual union all
           select 3 from dual union all
           select 4 from dual union all
           select 5 from dual)
select col,col2
from tble
where id in (select aid from a);

Table with more than 1000 columns

I need to store data from an equipment that logs 1500 parameters every minute. The natural approach would be to create a table where the first column stores the timestamp and the remaining columns the values sampled:
CREATE TABLE parameters (
sample_date date,
param1 float,
param2 float,
param1500 float
However, since there is a limitation of "just" 1000 coluns in Oracle, the table was designed as follows:
CREATE TABLE parameters (
sample_date date,
param_id number(4),
value float
An auxiliar table stores the valid parameters and their ids.
This works fine to store information, however it is very difficult to select data in a natural way.
There are situations where we just need to make a report using a few columns out of the 1500 available. Is it possible to create a view that would make the way we designed the table transparent? Let's say we just need to make a report using params 1,2 and 4. How can we create a view that would return all parameters of a sample in a single row:
sample_date param1 param2 param4
just as if we had the parameters stored in individual columns?
Marco

Not a very efficient and space friendly design to do name-value pairs like that.
Other methods to consider is splitting those 1500 parameters up into groupings of similar parameters, and then have a table per group.
Another option would be to use "vertical table partitioning" (as oppose to the more standard horizontal partitionining provided by the Oracle partition option) - this can be achieved (kind of) in Oracle using clusters.
Sooner or later this name-value design is going to bite you hard. It has 1500 rows where there should be only 1 row. It is not scalable.. and as you're discovering, it is unnatural to use. I would rather change that table and design sooner than later.

SQL select query having more than 1000 values in 'IN' clause of predicate.

Hi,
We are executing a select query from a table and showing it through a front end screen. When the count of values given in the 'IN' clause of predicate are exceeding 1000 , it is throwing error.
eg. select * from Employees where emp.Id. in('111',123','121','3232',........1001 Ids)
We are using Oracle version 10.2.0.
Please suggest how to tackle such issue.
Regards,
Naveen Kumar.C.
Edited by: Naveen Kumar C on Aug 30, 2008 10:01 PM

Use a nested table:
create or replace type numbertype
as object
(nr number(20,10) )
create or replace type number_table
as table of numbertype
create or replace procedure tableselect
( p_numbers in number_table
, p_ref_result out sys_refcursor)
is
begin
open p_ref_result for
     select *
{noformat}     from   employees
     ,        (select /*+ cardinality(tab 10) */ tab.nr
               from   table(p_numbers) tab) tbnrs
     where id = tbnrs.nr;
end;
/{noformat}
Using nested tables will reduce the amount of parsing because the sql statement uses binded variables! The cardinality hint causes Oracle to use the index on employees.id.

ALV grid display with more than 1000 columns

Hi Friends,
I have to prepare a report output which have 1015 columns.
User will give 100 weeks of data to retrieve. I have to display the output in day wise.
100*7 + 315 = 1015 columns.
I am using ALV grid display for this in 4.6C.
My Question is, whether I have to declare the output table type with 1015 fields.?
Is there any other way to do this, without declaring 1015 cloumns.
Please guide me to solve this.
Regards,
Viji.

I'm thinking when your End-user will press Ctrl + P feeding A4 size to printer
Thomas:
Maybe the functional consultant is pulling your leg?
May be OP is pulling our legs or something further?
Cheers

Can columns be more than 1000 in a select query (oracle 11 g)

I am getting this error: "ORA-01792: maximum number of columns in a table or view is 1000"
I have a dynamic query where number of column can increase according to the user input.
They can expect more than 1000 columns. Is it possible to fetch more than 1000 rows in a query?
I appreciate all your help.
Edited by: user10232912 on Apr 26, 2012 2:07 AM

>
They can expect more than 1000 columns.
Then they are idiots. IMO.
Open challenge. Show me an entity with a 1000 attributes and I will show you a flawed data
model and a total lack of grasping fundamentals of implementing that into a relation database product like Oracle.I second that - as someone who once had to ETL a system which had a table with 35.000 fields - that's 35K.
It was a system which made extensive use of arrays - and arrays of arrays of arrays...
Paul...

Table with more than 35 columns

Hello All.
How can one work with a table with more than 35 columns
on JDev 9.0.3.3?
My other question is related to this.
Setting Entities's Beans properties from a Session Bean
bought up the error, but when setting from inside the EJB,
the bug stays clear.
Is this right?
Thank you

Thank you all for reply.
Here's my problem:
I have an AS400/DB2 Database, a huge and an old one.
There is many COBOL Programs used to communicate with this DB.
My project is to transfer the database with the same structure and the same contents to a Linux/ORACLE System.
I will not remake the COBOL Programs. I will use the existing one on the Linux System.
So the tables of the new DB should be the same as the old one.
That’s why I can not make a relational DB. I have to make an exact migration.
Unfortunately I have some tables with more than 5000 COLUMNS.
Now my question is:
can I modify the parameters of the ORACE DB to make it accept Tables and Views with more than 1000 columns, If not, is it possible to make a PL/SQL Function that simulate a table, this function will insert/update/select data from many other small tables (<1000 columns). I want to say a method that make the ORACLE DB acting like if it has a table with a huge number of columns;
I know it's crazy but any idea please.

More than 1 column in the group by clause

DB Version:10gR2
I understand the basics of GROUP BY clause. I have a question on why we have on more than 1 columns in GROUP BY clause.
In the below example, the course name by itself does not make up a group. A Course name plus its BeginDate make up a group. This is the whole point of having more than 1 columns in the GROUP by clause. Right?
SQL> select r.course, r.begindate , count(r.attendee) as attendees
3   from registrations r
4   group by r.course, r.begindate
5   order by course
6 /
COURSE BEGINDATE      ATTENDEES
JAVA    12/13/1999           5
JAVA    2/1/2000             3
OAU     8/10/1999            3
OAU     9/27/2000            1
PLS     9/11/2000            3
SQL     4/12/1999            4
SQL     10/4/1999            3
SQL     12/13/1999           2
XML     2/3/2000             2

ExpansiveMind wrote:
Thanks Dmorgan. I am just learning the basics of GROUP BY clause. I have noticed that all Non-aggregate columns in SELECT list have to be present in the GROUP BY clause. I thought it was a "syntactical requirement". Now, i realise that these columns are present in the GROUP BY clause because only a combination of columns make up a group.Well, it is a bit of both actually. It is a syntactic requirement that all non-aggregated columns in the select list must appear in the group by clause. However, the non-aggregated columns in the select list is what defines your group. Your two examples define two different groups, and would answer two different questions.
John

Create table more than 1000 colum

Hello
I have 1500+ column in my select query. how to create table like my query is
create table xyz nologging as
select a1,a2,a3,a4,a5,b1,b2,b3,b4,b5,................a1500
from abcd a,bcde b
where a.a1=b.b1
In oracle 10g I can create only 1000 column in a table.
Please suggest

799301 wrote:
My all columns are formulated with different different tables and want to create one intermediate table
below query is just example
select count(unique((case when sysdate >45 then video=Y and audio=N then 1 else 0 end))) vd_45,
count(unique((case when sysdate >105 then video=Y and audio=N then 1 else 0 end))) vd_105,
count(unique((case when sysdate >195 then video=Y and audio=N then 1 else 0 end))) vd_195,
count(unique((case when sysdate >380 then video=Y and audio=N then 1 else 0 end))) vd_380,
count(unique((case when sysdate >45 then video=N and audio=Y then 1 else 0 end))) ad_45,
count(unique((case when sysdate >105 then video=N and audio=Y then 1 else 0 end))) ad_105,
count(unique((case when sysdate >195 then video=N and audio=Y then 1 else 0 end))) ad_195,
count(unique((case when sysdate >380 then video=N and audio=Y then 1 else 0 end))) ad_380
from abcd a,bcde b
where a.a1=b.b1;
please suggest how create more than 1000 table columnBy creating a proper relation between the "formulated function" and stored value.
Simplistically put:
Do you model invoices as entities INVOICES_2010, INVOICES_2011 and so on?
Or do you model it as INVOICES that has a year (date) attribute?
It does not make sense to put attribute data into the name of entity. Nor does it make sense to put relationship data into the name of an attribute and create a 1000+ attributes as a result.

Row chaining in table with more than 255 columns

Hi,
I have a table with 1000 columns.
I saw the following citation: "Any table with more then 255 columns will have chained
rows (we break really wide tables up)."
If I insert a row populated with only the first 3 columns (the others are null), is a row chaining occurred?
I tried to insert a row described above and no row chaining occurred.
As I understand, a row chaining occurs in a table with 1000 columns only when the populated data increases
the block size OR when more than 255 columns are populated. Am I right?
Thanks
dyahav

user10952094 wrote:
Hi,
I have a table with 1000 columns.
I saw the following citation: "Any table with more then 255 columns will have chained
rows (we break really wide tables up)."
If I insert a row populated with only the first 3 columns (the others are null), is a row chaining occurred?
I tried to insert a row described above and no row chaining occurred.
As I understand, a row chaining occurs in a table with 1000 columns only when the populated data increases
the block size OR when more than 255 columns are populated. Am I right?
Thanks
dyahavYesterday, I stated this on the forum "Tables with more than 255 columns will always have chained rows." My statement needs clarification. It was based on the following:
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/schema.htm#i4383
"Oracle Database can only store 255 columns in a row piece. Thus, if you insert a row into a table that has 1000 columns, then the database creates 4 row pieces, typically chained over multiple blocks."
And this paraphrase from "Practical Oracle 8i":
V$SYSSTAT will show increasing values for CONTINUED ROW FETCH as table rows are read for tables containing more than 255 columns.
Related information may also be found here:
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96524/c11schem.htm
"When a table has more than 255 columns, rows that have data after the 255th column are likely to be chained within the same block. This is called intra-block chaining. A chained row's pieces are chained together using the rowids of the pieces. With intra-block chaining, users receive all the data in the same block. If the row fits in the block, users do not see an effect in I/O performance, because no extra I/O operation is required to retrieve the rest of the row."
http://download.oracle.com/docs/html/B14340_01/data.htm
"For a table with several columns, the key question to consider is the (average) row length, not the number of columns. Having more than 255 columns in a table built with a smaller block size typically results in intrablock chaining.
Oracle stores multiple row pieces in the same block, but the overhead to maintain the column information is minimal as long as all row pieces fit in a single data block. If the rows don't fit in a single data block, you may consider using a larger database block size (or use multiple block sizes in the same database). "
Why not a test case?
Create a test table named T4 with 1000 columns.
With the table created, insert 1,000 rows into the table, populating the first 257 columns each with a random 3 byte string which should result in an average row length of about 771 bytes.
SPOOL C:\TESTME.TXT
SELECT
SN.NAME,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
INSERT INTO T4 (
COL1,
COL2,
COL3,
COL255,
COL256,
COL257)
SELECT
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3)
FROM
DUAL
CONNECT BY
LEVEL<=1000;
SELECT
SN.NAME,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
SET AUTOTRACE TRACEONLY STATISTICS
SELECT
FROM
T4;
SET AUTOTRACE OFF
SELECT
SN.NAME,
SN.STATISTIC#,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
SPOOL OFFWhat are the results of the above?
Before the insert:
NAME                      VALUE
table fetch continue        166
After the insert:
NAME                      VALUE
table fetch continue        166
After the select:
NAME                 STATISTIC#      VALUE
table fetch continue        252        332 Another test, this time with an average row length of about 12 bytes:
DELETE FROM T4;
COMMIT;
SPOOL C:\TESTME2.TXT
SELECT
SN.NAME,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
INSERT INTO T4 (
COL1,
COL256,
COL257,
COL999)
SELECT
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3)
FROM
DUAL
CONNECT BY
LEVEL<=100000;
SELECT
SN.NAME,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
SET AUTOTRACE TRACEONLY STATISTICS
SELECT
FROM
T4;
SET AUTOTRACE OFF
SELECT
SN.NAME,
SN.STATISTIC#,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
SPOOL OFFWith 100,000 rows each containing about 12 bytes, what should the 'table fetch continued row' statistic show?
Before the insert:
NAME                      VALUE
table fetch continue        332
After the insert:
NAME                      VALUE
table fetch continue        332
After the select:
NAME                 STATISTIC#      VALUE
table fetch continue        252      33695The final test only inserts data into the first 4 columns:
DELETE FROM T4;
COMMIT;
SPOOL C:\TESTME3.TXT
SELECT
SN.NAME,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
INSERT INTO T4 (
COL1,
COL2,
COL3,
COL4)
SELECT
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3)
FROM
DUAL
CONNECT BY
LEVEL<=100000;
SELECT
SN.NAME,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
SET AUTOTRACE TRACEONLY STATISTICS
SELECT
FROM
T4;
SET AUTOTRACE OFF
SELECT
SN.NAME,
SN.STATISTIC#,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
SPOOL OFFWhat should the 'table fetch continued row' show?
Before the insert:
NAME                      VALUE
table fetch continue      33695
After the insert:
NAME                      VALUE
table fetch continue      33695
After the select:
NAME                 STATISTIC#      VALUE
table fetch continue        252      33695 My statement "Tables with more than 255 columns will always have chained rows." needs to be clarified:
"Tables with more than 255 columns will always have chained rows +(row pieces)+ if a column beyond column 255 is used, but the 'table fetch continued row' statistic +may+ only increase in value if the remaining row pieces are found in a different block."
Charles Hooper
IT Manager/Oracle DBA
K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.
Edited by: Charles Hooper on Aug 5, 2009 9:52 AM
Paraphrase misspelled the view name "V$SYSSTAT", corrected a couple minor typos, and changed "will" to "may" in the closing paragraph as this appears to be the behavior based on the test case.

Colorization of more than 500 columns in CFBuilder

Hi,
For those who faced issues and reproted bugs related to colorization not working for more than 500 columns, please refer to the blog post here:
http://blogs.adobe.com/cfbuilder/2009/07/colorization_of_more_than_500.html
Thanks,
Dipanwita
http://blogs.adobe.com/cfbuilder

@John Is your response for Open Directory users because I can say with certainty that your response is not true for AD searches. The filter box only whittles down the intial 500 displayed results (appears to from my testing). I can view all 8000 of my groups (yes I tweaked the 1000 cap for LDAP queries on the ad server) and up to 8000 users in Directory Utility, even do individual searches for undisplayed users (actually have 50000 or so) and still get them back. It seems Directory Utilitity DOES form LDAP queries correctly and efficiently, whereas Server app does not. It seems Server app, at least against an AD server, tries to LDAP query for everything, and only filters down the max results it gets back. Am I wrong? If I were, I should be able to use the search box and still get the same 8000 groups I do in Directory Utility, which I don't. Know how to fix?
To clarify: This only happens when I need to give access permissions to "Services" in the Users or Groups section under Accounts. Intestingly, looking up the users and groups to set permissions for the actual Sharepoint, works just fine.
@Antonio While you're right it doesn't seem Server App can come anywhere close to Active Directory in terms of managing the entire infrastructure, I think you're wrong when you sort of insinuate that it shouldn't be able to work in tandem with it. Forming the LDAP queries to AD better seems like such a simple thing to fix - nobody is asking it do the same workload as AD. I work at an educational institution that is AD infrastructure on the whole, but I just happen to manage an Arts college that it's part of and I prefer the Server App + Deploy Studio + Remote Desktop to manage our 90% rate of macs, as opposed to using the SCCM and AD tools I easily could use. And I doubt I'm the only mac admin in a similar situation. This is something Apple could and SHOULD easily fix.

How can i get more than 1000 items in Custom List Displaying Items?

http://.....sites/_vti_bin/listdata.svc/AddressBook(List) allows 1000 items Only my AddressBook List, but i have more than 1000 items in my AddressBook list. I want to get items
from AddressBook list and bind in another place using Autocomplete method like this.
=======>>>>listurl=http://.....sites/_vti_bin/listdata.svc/AddressBook.
and my coding in camel like below
protected void btnpopulatedetails_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
SPSite objSite = SPContext.Current.Site;
SPWeb objWeb = objSite.OpenWeb();
objWeb.AllowUnsafeUpdates = true;
SPList list = objWeb.Lists["Address Book"];
SPQuery query = new SPQuery();
query.QueryThrottleMode = SPQueryThrottleOption.Override;
query.Query = "<Where><Eq><FieldRef Name='Title'/><Value Type='Text'>" + txtcustomer.Value + "</Value></Eq></Where>";
query.RowLimit = 500;
SPListItemCollection items = list.GetItems(query);
function fnCustomerSearchBind() {
if ($("input[id$='txtcustomer']").length != 0) {
var collcustomer = searchCustomers('', urlTo, fieldto);
$("input[id$='txtcustomer']").autocomplete({
source: collcustomer,
//maxLength:10,
select: function (event, ui) {
//debugger;
event.preventDefault();
$("input[id$='txtcustomer']").val(ui.item.value);
$("input[id$='btnpopulatedetails']").click();
return false;
minLength: 0,
function searchCustomers(value, listurl, fieldto) {
var collcus = new Array();
var custresults;
var url =listurl + "?$filter=startswith('" + fieldto + "','" + value + "')";
//debugger;
$.ajax({
cache: true,
type: "GET",
async:false,
dataType: "json",
url: url,
success: function (data) {
custresults = data.d.results;
//alert(listurl);
// alert(data.d.results);
for (var x = 0; x < custresults.length; x++) {
//alert(custresults[x]['To']);
collcustList.push(custresults[x]['To']);
//debugger;
//debugger;
return collcustList;
In my research listurl=http://.....sites/_vti_bin/listdata.svc/AddressBook has 1000 items in 1st Page by default, So how to change 1st Page by default to All Pages through
code. I think you understand my environment by look above coding, if you don't I am using office 365 sandbox solution. One more thing i know through my research Pages can be change by using Ado.Net Data Service, i tried this one but this one support windows
server 2008 r2 only but i am using Windows Server 2012 r2. Please help me if you know the answer.

Hi,
Here is a blog would be helpful:
ADO.NET Data Services returns 1000 items
https://gilleslauwers.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/ado-net-data-services-returns-1000-items/
Best Regards,
Dennis Guo
TechNet Community Support
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help, and unmark the answers if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact
[email protected]

Handeling more than 1000 columns in where clause

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for