Non equijoin and cross join

I tried learning about nonequi join and cross join.
When I try non equi join "select * from emp,dept;"...I am getting total of 60 rows.
when I try cross join "select * from emp cross join dept"...I am getting same count(60 rows) and same output.
Can anypone please give me the exact difference between the above joins.
Which cases they are used.
Thanks

Hi,
user11048416 wrote:
I tried learning about nonequi join and cross join.
When I try non equi join "select * from emp,dept;"...I am getting total of 60 rows.
when I try cross join "select * from emp cross join dept"...I am getting same count(60 rows) and same output.
Can anypone please give me the exact difference between the above joins.Those two are exactly the same. The first one is Oracle's older notation, the other second (using the keywords CROSS JOIN) is ANSI syntax, which Oracle started supporting in version 9.
Which cases they are used.By far, the most common occurrence of cross joins is when someone forgets to add join conditions in the older syntax. That's one reason why ANSI syntax is better.
There are real uses, but they are not very common, and getting rarer.
If one of the tables (usually a result set, not a full table) has only one row, it's a way to add the columns of that "table" to another result set.
Cross-joins are also used for partitioned outer joins (where you want one row for each combination of attributes, whether or not it actually occurs in the data) and unpivots displaying several columns from the same row as if they were one column on several rows). In Oracle 11, there are cleaner ways for doing both of these.

Similar Messages

MERGE INTO and CROSS JOIN

Hello Guys,
I have a bit of trouble understanding the MERGE I have written here.
All the code executes without errors. As far as I see,
the below MERGE SELECT is a Cartesian product/cross join and I remember that is not
good. The ON (join condition) seems to be only for the merge into table (T_CLAIMS_BB) and
the table that comes from the select (d).
merge into T_CLAIMS_BB t
using
SELECT sch_vt.SCH#,vert.CNO,vers.SubCNo,regv.ReturnNo,regv.SndReturnNo,sch_vt.MainProd,sch_vt.Prod
FROM mainschema.TCONTRACT vert, mainschema.TVERSCONTRACT vers, commonschema.VC_REGVEREINB regv, myschema.T_CLAIMS_VT sch_vt
) d
ON (
t.sch# = d.sch# AND
SUBSTR(UPPER(t.BOOKINGTEXT),1,2) = d.SndReturnNo AND d.SubCNo IS NULL
) -- Join
when matched then
update
set t.CNO = 'a',
t.ReturnNo = 'a',
t.MainProd = 'b',
t.Prod = 'c';
I wonder now, what is the advantage of using MERGE in my case - if there is one.
Finally I want to demonstrate how the whole thing would look without a MERGE:
SELECT vers.* FROM TVERSCONTRACT vers
LEFT OUTER JOIN myschema.T_CLAIMS_BB sch ON sch.SubCNo = vers.SubCNo
LEFT OUTER JOIN commonschema.VC_REGVEREINB regv ON sch.SCH# = regv.SCH# AND SUBSTR(UPPER(sch.BUCHTEXT),1,2) = regv.SndReturnNo AND sch.SubCNo IS NULL
LEFT OUTER JOIN myschema.T_CLAIMS_VT sch_vt ON sch.SCH# = sch_vt.SCH#

Hi,
metalray wrote:
Hello Guys,
I have a bit of trouble understanding the MERGE I have written here.
All the code executes without errors. As far as I see,
the below MERGE SELECT is a Cartesian product/cross join and I remember that is not
good.Cross joins are good for some purposes. In practice, they're useful in only 1 or 2 queries out of every 1000.
Using the old join notation, it was very easy to get a cross join by mistake. Given how rarely cross joins are needed, the vast majority of cross joins (using old notation) were not good, but that was the fault of the programmers and the notation, not an indication that cross join itself was bad.
The ON (join condition) seems to be only for the merge into table (T_CLAIMS_BB) and
the table that comes from the select (d).Exactly!
You can have separate ON conditions inside the USING sub-query, if you need them.
>
merge into T_CLAIMS_BB t
using
SELECT sch_vt.SCH#,vert.CNO,vers.SubCNo,regv.ReturnNo,regv.SndReturnNo,sch_vt.MainProd,sch_vt.Prod
FROM mainschema.TCONTRACT vert, mainschema.TVERSCONTRACT vers, commonschema.VC_REGVEREINB regv, myschema.T_CLAIMS_VT sch_vt
) d
ON (
t.sch# = d.sch# AND
SUBSTR(UPPER(t.BOOKINGTEXT),1,2) = d.SndReturnNo AND d.SubCNo IS NULL
) -- Join
when matched then
update
set t.CNO = 'a',
t.ReturnNo = 'a',
t.MainProd = 'b',
t.Prod = 'c';
I wonder now, what is the advantage of using MERGE in my case - if there is one.I don't see any advantage, but I suspect the statement, as written, is not doing what it's supposed to. If someone made the mistake of using MERGE when UPDATE would be better, that might be the least of the mistakes in this statement.
Finally I want to demonstrate how the whole thing would look without a MERGE:It looks like the MERGE statement above is equivalent to:
UPDATE     t_claims_bb
SET     cno          = 'a'
,     returnno     = 'a'
,     mainprod     = 'b'
,     prod          = 'c'
WHERE     UPPER (SUBSTR (bookingtext, 1, 2)) IN
          SELECT returnno
          FROM     commonschema.vc_regvereinb
AND     EXISTS
          SELECT 1
          FROM     mainschema.tverscontract
          WHERE     subcno     IS NULL
AND     EXISTS
          SELECT     1
          FROM     mainschema.tcontract
AND     EXISTS
          SELECT     1
          FROM     myschema.t_claims_vt
;Again, I suspect that the MERGE state,ment above is not doing what it was meant to do, or may coinncidentally be getting the right results on a small sample set. Many of the tables named in the USING clause of the MERGE statement do'nt seem to have much of a role in this problem.
SELECT vers.* FROM TVERSCONTRACT vers
LEFT OUTER JOIN myschema.T_CLAIMS_BB sch ON sch.SubCNo = vers.SubCNo
LEFT OUTER JOIN commonschema.VC_REGVEREINB regv ON sch.SCH# = regv.SCH# AND SUBSTR(UPPER(sch.BUCHTEXT),1,2) = regv.SndReturnNo AND sch.SubCNo IS NULL
LEFT OUTER JOIN myschema.T_CLAIMS_VT sch_vt ON sch.SCH# = sch_vt.SCH#What is this query? Perhaps you meant to have something like this in the USING clause of the MERGE.
I hope this answers your question.
If not, post a little sample data (CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements, relevant columns only) for all the tables involved, and the results you want from that data.
The sample data should show what the tables are like before the MERGE (or UPDATE), and the results will be the contents of the changed table after the MERGE.
Explain, using specific examples, how you get those results from that data.
Always say what version of Oracle you're using.

Difference between Innner Join and Cross Join

Dear all,
select * from tbl1 inner join tbl2 on tbl1.id =tbl2.id
select * from tbl1 cross join tbl2
Works same what is the logical difference between this two statements??
Dilip Patil..

INNER Join returns the rows from both tables which has satisfied matching condition.
In
CROSS Join, each record from tbl1 is matched with tbl2. Result would be Number Of rows in tbl1 X Number of rows in tbl2.
Note: If you provide where condition in CROSS JOIN, it will give you same result as your first INNER JOIN query
select * from tbl1 cross join tbl2
where tbl1.id =tbl2.id
-Vaibhav Chaudhari

OBIEE: non empty cross join function problem with some reports

Hi all,
I am getting some problem ,when we are excuting some requests in OBIEE its taking long time , Actually our OBIEE is connected with Essbase when we are generating some reports its taking long time so i captured the Query in OBIEE and Iam excuting that query in Essbase MDX editor
its having the the function " NON EMPTy CROSS JOIN"
which reports having non empty crossjoin function its taking long time so how can i disable this function in OBIEEfor that reports
I dont want to use that function for my reports so how can i do this in OBIEE
your help would be appriciated.
Thanks
Edited by: user8815661 on 26 mai 2010 08:44

Any Help

CONNECT BY with CROSS JOIN and WHERE not executing as described in doc

Hello all,
please see these two statements. They are the same, but the 1st uses t1 INNER JOIN t2 while the snd uses a CROSS JOIN with WHERE.
The 2nd statement shows one row more than the first, but the CROSS JOIN with WHERE is the same as the INNER JOIN.
The result would be OK if Oracle did:
JOIN -> CONNECT BY PRIOR -> WHERE
But according to the docs it does:
JOIN (and WHEREs for JOINS) -> CONNECT BY PRIOR -> Rest of WHERE
See http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e26088/queries003.htm#SQLRF52332 for details. There it says:
Oracle processes hierarchical queries as follows:
A join, if present, is evaluated first, whether the join is specified in the FROM clause or with WHERE clause predicates.
The CONNECT BY condition is evaluated.
Any remaining WHERE clause predicates are evaluated.
+.....+
Is this a bug? I'd say yes, because it differs from the docs and it also is not what people are used to ("a,b WHERE" is the same as "a INNER JOIN b").
Thanks,
Blama
--Statement 1:
WITH t1
AS
(SELECT 1 a, 2 b FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 2 a, 3 b FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 3 a, 4 b FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 4 a, 5 b FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 5 a, 6 b FROM DUAL),
t2 AS
(SELECT 1 c FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 2 c FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 3 c FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 5 c FROM DUAL)
SELECT DISTINCT t1.a, t2.c, t1.b, level, SYS_CONNECT_BY_PATH(t1.a, '/') Path
FROM t1 INNER JOIN t2
ON t1.a = t2.c
CONNECT BY t1.a = PRIOR t1.b
START WITH t1.a = 1
ORDER BY
1,2,3;
--Result:
--1     1     2     1     /1
--2     2     3     2     /1/2
--3     3     4     3     /1/2/3
--Statement 2:
WITH t1
AS
(SELECT 1 a, 2 b FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 2 a, 3 b FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 3 a, 4 b FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 4 a, 5 b FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 5 a, 6 b FROM DUAL),
t2 AS
(SELECT 1 c FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 2 c FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 3 c FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 5 c FROM DUAL)
SELECT DISTINCT t1.a, t2.c, t1.b, level, SYS_CONNECT_BY_PATH(t1.a, '/') Path
FROM t1 CROSS JOIN t2
WHERE t1.a = t2.c
CONNECT BY t1.a = PRIOR t1.b
START WITH t1.a = 1
ORDER BY
1,2,3;
--Result:
--1     1     2     1     /1
--2     2     3     2     /1/2
--3     3     4     3     /1/2/3
--5     5     6     5     /1/2/3/4/5My details:
Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.2.0.2.0 - 64bit Production
PL/SQL Release 11.2.0.2.0 - Production
CORE     11.2.0.2.0     Production
TNS for Solaris: Version 11.2.0.2.0 - Production
NLSRTL Version 11.2.0.2.0 - Production

blama wrote:
Hello Paul,
that means that "a,b" isn't the same as "a CROSS JOIN b".
I don't think that that is really the case.
Do you have docs on this one?No explicit docs just (my) logic - having said that, I suppose it is implied that if you are doing ANSI style joins, it's not the where clauses that
are specifying the join.
If you do t1,t2 where t1.a=t2.a then Oracle figures out the kind of join from the (relevant) where clauses and treats the other where clauses after the CONNECT BY.
If you do t1 cross join t2 where t1.a=t2.a then you are saying the join is completely specified by the CROSS JOIN - i.e it's Cartesian. Oracle doesn't look at the where clauses for this. Therefore
all where clauses are treated as 'other' and are evaluated after the CONNECT BY.
So, in my mind it's 10g that has the bug.

Performance considerations between a cross join and inner join

Hi there,
What's the performance difference and impact on running a cross-join based query against an inner join based query?
Regards and thanks

Before going to the performance issue - ensure you get the required data and not just some data shown.
Performance should be checked only between equivalent queries which produce same output but with different processing.
Are you sure you get same output in cross join as well as inner join?
If so pass on your different queries and then discuss with one is better.

Cross join a dimension and measure

I am new to MDX, looking at this query, why item(0) in the cross join in the [Top Product Sales] returns just Internet Sales Amount? Isn't the cross join supposed to return a set of (Product, Internet Sales Amount)?
WITH
MEMBER [Measures].[Top Product Sales] AS
EXISTING
TopCount(
[Product].[Product].[Product].Members,
1,
([Measures].[Internet Sales Amount])
{[Measures].[Internet Sales Amount]}
}.Item(0)
,FORMAT_STRING="Currency"
SELECT
([Measures].[Internet Sales Amount]),
([Measures].[Top Product Sales])
} ON COLUMNS,
([Date].[Calendar Year].[CY 2005]),
([Date].[Calendar Year].[CY 2006]),
([Date].[Calendar Year].[CY 2007]),
([Date].[Calendar Year].[CY 2008])
} ON ROWS
FROM [Adventure Works]
If I run the following query, I get a set from both dimensions (product and Internet Sales Amount), which makes sense to me, but why the above cross join return only Internet Sales Amount?
WITH
set x AS
TopCount(
[Product].[Product].[Product].Members,
1,
([Measures].[Internet Sales Amount])
{[Measures].[Internet Sales Amount]}
SELECT
{} ON COLUMNS,
x ON ROWS
FROM [Adventure Works]

Hi Thotwielder,
As you said that, the crossjoin return a set of (Product, Internet Sales Amount) which you can see on the screenshot below.
However, you use this set as a calculated measure, product is a dimension other than measure, so it will only use the Internet Sales Amount.
In your scenario, it seems that you want to get the top sales products for each year, right? If in this case, please try the query below.
SELECT
GENERATE
[Date].[Calendar].[Calendar Year].MEMBERS
,TOPCOUNT({[Date].[Calendar].CURRENTMEMBER*[Product].[Product].[Product]},1,[Measures].[Sales Amount]))
ON 1
,[Measures].[Sales Amount] ON 0
FROM [Adventure Works]
Results
If I have anything misunderstanding, please feel free to let me know.
Regards,
Charlie Liao
TechNet Community Support

[nQSError: 14065] Illegal cross join within the same dimension

Hey guys,
I'm stumped. I have two dimension tables that are joined 1:N (there is NOT an M:N relationship between them) and I have them joined in the Physical Layer and the Business Model and Mapping Layer. The two tables are F4101 (the "1") and F4102 (the "N") in the 1:N relationship. F4102 then joins to a fact table, and F4101 joins to NOTHING else. So I don't believe I have a circular condition or a need for a bridge table. Both tables are published to the Presentation Layer for reporting.
The error occurs in Answers when I want to do something as trivial as display the three primary key columns together from F4101: F4101.col1, F4101.col2, F4101.col3 (all three make up the PK). When I do that, the following error occurs:
"nQSError: 14065] Illegal cross join within the same dimension caused by incorrect subject area setup: [ F4101 T28761] with [ F4102 T1805] "
What I can't figure out is WHY the F4102 table is listed in this error. I didn't try to report on it at all. See the logical SQL below from my query:
"SQL Issued: SELECT "Item Master (F4101)".IMITM saw_0, "Item Master (F4101)".IMLITM saw_1, "Item Master (F4101)".IMAITM saw_2 FROM "Sales Analysis" ORDER BY saw_0, saw_1, saw_2"
As soon as I take out one of the three PK columns and add in another non-PK column from F4101, it works just fine. And reporting on each of the three PK columns individually works as well in Answers.
Any ideas? I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks.

Try this;
1. In the logical layer, create one folder called F4101_F4102.
2. Map both F4101 and F4102 as logical table sources in that folder.
3. Join from the folder F4101_F4102 to the fact using a Logical (new complex join) join.
Chris.

CARTESIAN/CROSS JOIN

HI,
i use OBIEE version 11.1.1.6.0. I created dummy fact table and column in physical layer. and join all dimensional table with this fact. but i dont know ow handle with it in business model. can anyone help me to create cross join?
Thanks
Edited by: 968086 on Oct 30, 2012 12:59 AM

Follow this link
http://www.rittmanmead.com/2009/08/oracle-bi-ee-10-1-3-4-1-reporting-on-non-transactional-dimension-values-equivalence-of-outer-joins/
Pls mark if helps

Formula :using filter with cross join issue

Hi alll,
Ihave one scenario like calclate the ytd values using cross join like
IIF(is ([Flow].CurrentMember,[YTD]),
(case
when
is ([PERIOD].CurrentMember,[2008.01])
Then (Sum (crossjoin({[DI-3]},CrossJoin({[FLOW].[MtD]},{[PERIOD].[2008.01],[PERIOD].[2008.01] })))/2)
when
is ([PERIOD].CurrentMember,[2008.02])
Then (Sum (crossjoin({[DI-3]},crossjoin({[FLOW].[MtD]},{[PERIOD].[2008.01],[PERIOD].[2008.02]}))))
when
is ([PERIOD].CurrentMember,[2008.03])
Then (Sum (crossjoin({[DI-3]},CrossJoin({[FLOW].[MtD]},{[PERIOD].[2008.01],[PERIOD].[2008.02],[PERIOD].[2008.03]))))
etc,othercase)
but I am trying other oneto decrese the size of formula
IIF(is ([Flow].CurrentMember,[YTD]),
(Sum (crossjoin({[DI-3]},CrossJoin({[FLOW].[MtD]},
{filter([PERIOD].Generations(5).members,StrToNum(Right([PERIOD].CurrentMember.MEMBER_NAME,2)) <= StrToNum(Right([PERIOD].CurrentMember.MEMBER_NAME,2)) AND StrToNum(Left([PERIOD].CurrentMember.MEMBER_NAME,4))=StrToNum(left([PERIOD].CurrentMember.MEMBER_NAME,4)) ) }))))
, othercase )
but its result is same value for all the YTDs for every month, something is going wrong some where
plz any help would be appriociated
Thanks in advance
.

macearl wrote:
SQL View does not display unless data is returned by the query. Is that normal?
Also, none of these options shows the literal result of the expression we built, i.e.:
expression: CAST(YEAR(TIMESTAMPADD(SQL_TSI_MONTH, -24, CURRENT_DATE)) as CHAR)
result: *2008*
Having the ability to test expressions and see their results would be very helpful in debugging. If anyone knows how to do that please share!
Thanks!
MacOk, Probably shoud have figured this out before, but in response to my own question, the way to view the result of an expression is to add the expression as a column and include it in the Table Presentation.
- Mac (he can be taught)

Why is a cross join classified as an inner join?

hi guys,
searching the web is just confusing me, so maybe someone here could help.
On wikipedia (for join) it says:
An outer join does not require each record in the two joined tables to have a matching record
Now, a cross join does not require any of the records of the table to have a matching record, therefore I would classify it as an outer join. Why then is it classified as an inner join?
thanks

Cross join produces the cross-product. You can not specify cross join condition since there is none - it always implies every row in table1 joined with every row in table2:
SQL> select ename,dname from emp cross join dept on(1=1)
2 /
select ename,dname from emp cross join dept on(1=1)
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-00933: SQL command not properly ended
SQL> With outer join you must specify join condition:
SQL> select ename,dname from emp left join dept
2 /
select ename,dname from emp left join dept
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-00905: missing keyword
SQL> And join result rules are completely different - matching rows or NULL row.
SY.

Cross Join in SAP MDX using Web I

Hi there,
I am facing an issue. I am currently using BO universe on the top of BW infocube. Now whenever i am dragging two dimensions from the universe in my web i report it is creating cross join , however whenever i add any key figures , it changes the cross join to Non Empty Cross Join.
Now while testing the mdx query in MDXTEST i found that while running the MDX query with two dimensions only is giving me a cross join in MDXTEST also, however if i modify the cross join to non empty cross join it gives me the correct data.
Is it possible to do something in BO or SAP side so that my query starts creating non empty cross join rather then mere cross join.
Is it something to do with the transports we run before installing SAP integration kit
Thanks for your support

Thanks for your input Ingo. I am however creating a report in web intelligence using infocube as the base. Connected via integration kit and a universe. The universe is on the top of the infocube.
So when i create a web i report with two dimensions it is simply doing cross join however when we add a key figure it gives the correct data. The data which comes out of a report with two dimensions only is different then the data coming out of a bex query using the infocube as the base simply because the web i report is creating cross join (in database terminology) whereas the bex query is joining the two dimensions via the fact table to give us relevant data ( e.g. customers for a particular material)
Now when we analyzed the query coming out web i, we found out that instead of "crossjoin" if it uses "Non Empty Crossjoin" it solves the purpose.
Coming to the point the query getting generated from web i is incorrect. I was hoping to get some kind of fix if available from the forum else ask the SAP support people to provide with a hotfix or something
Thanks

Report with non aggregated and aggregated columns from different facts.

Hi,
We have got requirement as follows,
1) We have two dimension tables, and two fact(Fact1 and Fact2) table in physical.
2) In BMM we have made hierarchies for both dimensions, and are joins both logical fact table.
3)In fact1, we are having three measures of which we have made two as aggregation sum, and one is non aggregated(It contains character).
4)Fact2 have two measures, both are aggregation as sum.
5)Now here the problem arises, we want to make a report with some columns from dim and non aggrgated column from fact1 and and aggregated column fact2
How to resolve the above issue.
Regards,
Ankit

As suggested you really want to move your none-aggregated fact attributes to a logical dimension (using the same physical table as the logical fact). Map this in the BMM layer as a snowflake, Place a hierarchy on this dimension with (at minimum) Total -> Detail levels, then on the other fact table you want to include in the report, set the content level on your other fact measures to the 'Total' level for your new logical Dim and it will allow them to be present in the same report.

Acrobat 9 Pro: Links to Word TOC and cross references are lost

I'm testing Acrobat 9 Pro and while it successfully creates a PDF from Word 2003 with bookmarks, all my TOC and internal page reference links are lost.
I have triple checked the conversion settings from the Adobe PDF menu option in Word, and the "Convert cross-references and table of contents to links" check box is definitely selected.
I used the same Word document on another machine with Acrobat 6 Pro installed - and the TOC and cross ref links were created successfully. As far as I can see the Adobe PDF settings in Word 2003 on both machines are the same - the only difference is that one uses Acrobat 6 Pro and the other uses Acrobat 9 Pro.
The only setting in 9 Pro I turned off was the 'enable accessibility tagging' one; it's also turned off in 6 Pro. The remaining settings are the default.
A clickable TOC and internal links is essential for my clients who often have 400+ page documents.
Anybody have any suggestions? Or can anybody confirm that they do/don't get the same behavior in Acrobat 9 Pro?

Thanks Abhigyan - your test PDF worked fine for me.
This is what I've done today:
1. Checked for all instances of pdfm*.dot files and removed any that were lurking in old Application Data and Microsoft Office folders.
2. Deleted all Acrobat 5 and 6 folders and subfolders still lurking in Program Files.
3. Used Add/Remove to delete Adobe Reader 8 and its updates. I figure I can always install Reader 9 if I need it as a separate app.
4. Checked that everything was gone using the Windows Installer CleanUp utility (it was).
5. Restarted my machine.
6. Turned off my anti-virus software.
7. Did a search for any pdfm*.dot files - found one only in the current Microsoft Office folder and left it there.
8. Reinstalled Acrobat 9 Professional.
9. Opened my test Word 2003 document.
10. Checked all the Acrobat conversion settings and left them as the defaults.
11. Converted the doc to PDF and checked for internal links. Yes! The TOC links worked! But my joy was short-lived as the page link didn't work...
12. Tried various other conversion settings based on some suggestions from Lance in first level Adobe Support yesterday - still no page link. And I also lost the TOC links when I cleared the Enable Accessibility check box on the Settings tab of the conversion settings.
13. Checked the Edit > Preferences > Convert To PDF settings for Word in Acrobat 9 - add bookmarks and add links are both selected (default).
14. Used Acrobat 9 to create the PDF (File > Create > From File) hoping that this might might a difference. Nope. No TOC or page links.
15. Changed conversion settings back to default via Word 2003, and created a PDF from a longer document. Again the TOC links worked, the URLs worked (they always did), the bookmarks worked (they always did too), but the none of the internal page cross-reference links worked.
So my summary is this:
* I can only create TOC links *if* Enable Accessibility is turned on, but I have always turned this off in earlier versions of Acrobat as I don't need it and it made the process of creating a PDF from a long document incredibly slow - I'm wary of using it!
* I cannot get internal page links to work at all, no matter which method I use to create the PDF (from within Word or within Acrobat), and no matter which conversion settings I select.
I really don't know what to try next. Manually creating links for what could be hundreds of cross-references in a single document is NOT an option, especially as I have many of these long documents.
Any further suggestions?

AIR-CAP3702I booting up in mesh mode and not joining our 5508 WLC

I have a batch of 30+ AIR-CAP3702I-A-K9 APs that I need to setup but none of them are joining to the 5508 WLC and when I connect a console cable and view the output from the AP it shows that it is trying to initiate in mesh mode. I have read other forums that are showing that I need to put in the APs MAC address to a filter list on the WLC for it to show up and then I will be able to change it from mesh mode to local mode. The only issue I'm having with that solution is not knowing how it will affect my current production environment off of that 5508 WLC. I have 69 active production APs with clients working off them and there are no MAC filters currently in place on the WLC. By adding a MAC filter entry for the new APs would the WLC create an implicit deny for all other clients that don't have their MAC addresses entered?? If so is there another work around? Can the mode be changed via the CLI on the AP itself to make it local instead of mesh?

sh capwap client rcb
AdminState : ADMIN_ENABLED
SwVer : 7.6.1.118
NumFilledSlots : 2
Name : AP88f0.4290.7184
Location : default location
MwarName : xxxxx
MwarApMgrIp : x.x.x.x !<it has the correct name and IP of the WLC>
MwarHwVer : 0.0.0.0
ApMode : Bridge
ApSubMode : Not Configured
OperationState : JOIN
CAPWAP Path MTU : 576
LinkAuditing : disabled
ApRole : MeshAP
ApBackhaul : 802.11a
ApBackhaulChannel : 0
ApBackhaulSlot : 2
ApBackhaul11gEnabled : 0
ApBackhaulTxRate : 24000
Ethernet Bridging State : 0
Public Safety State : disabled
AP Rogue Detection Mode : Enabled
AP Tcp Mss Adjust : Disabled
AP IPv6 TCP MSS Adjust : Disabled
Predownload Status : None
Auto Immune Status : Disabled
RA Guard Status : Disabled
Efficient Upgrade State : Disabled
Efficient Upgrade Role : None
TFTP Server : Disabled
Antenna Band Mode : Unknown
802.11bg(0) Radio
ADMIN State = ENABLE [1]
OPER State = DOWN [1]
CONFIG State = UP [2]
HW State = UP [4]
Radio Mode : Bridge
GPR Period : 0
Beacon Period : 0
DTIM Period : 0
World Mode : 1
VoceraFix : 0
Dfs peakdetect : 1
Fragmentation Threshold : 2346
Current Tx Power Level : 0
Current Channel : 11
Current Bandwidth : 20
802.11a(1) Radio
ADMIN State = ENABLE [1]
OPER State = DOWN [1]
CONFIG State = UP [2]
HW State = UP [4]
Radio Mode : Bridge
GPR Period : 0
Beacon Period : 0
DTIM Period : 0
World Mode : 1
VoceraFix : 0
Dfs peakdetect : 1
Fragmentation Threshold : 2346
Current Tx Power Level : 1
Current Channel : 165
Current Bandwidth : 20
It is showing the following error on our WLC in the log file:
Tue Jul 15 14:01:26 2014
AAA Authentication Failure for UserName:88f042907184 User Type: WLAN USER
And here are some of the errors it's showing on the AP after bootup:
*Jul 15 17:47:30.471: %CAPWAP-5-SENDJOIN: sending Join Request to x.x.x.x
*Jul 15 17:47:31.003: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to down
*Jul 15 17:47:31.031: %LINK-6-UPDOWN: Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
*Jul 15 17:47:31.039: %LINK-6-UPDOWN: Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to down
*Jul 15 17:47:31.047: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to reset
*Jul 15 17:47:32.067: %LINK-6-UPDOWN: Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
*Jul 15 17:47:33.067: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
*Jul 15 17:47:35.471: %CAPWAP-5-SENDJOIN: sending Join Request to x.x.x.x
*Jul 15 17:47:35.471: %DTLS-5-ALERT: Received WARNING : Close notify alert from x.x.x.x
*Jul 15 17:47:35.475: %LINK-6-UPDOWN: Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to down
*Jul 15 17:47:35.483: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to reset
*Jul 15 17:47:36.475: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to down
*Jul 15 17:47:36.503: %LINK-6-UPDOWN: Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
*Jul 15 17:47:37.503: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Dot11Radio0, changed state to up
*Jul 15 17:48:15.007: %MESH-3-TIMER_EXPIRED: Mesh Lwapp join timer expired
*Jul 15 17:48:15.007: %MESH-3-TIMER_EXPIRED: Mesh Lwapp join failed expired
*Jul 15 17:48:15.007: %MESH-6-LINK_UPDOWN: Mesh station 88f0.4290.7184 link Down
*Jul 15 17:48:17.007: %LINK-6-UPDOWN: Interface BVI1, changed state to down
*Jul 15 17:48:22.507: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface BVI1, changed state to down
*Jul 15 17:59:10.099: %CAPWAP-3-ERRORLOG: Invalid event 31 & state 4 combination
*Jul 15 17:59:10.099: %CAPWAP-3-ERRORLOG: SM handler: Failed to process timer message. Event 31, state 4

Non equijoin and cross join

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for