ORA-13044: the specified tile size is smaller than the tolerance

Hi,
I get the oracle error ORA-13044: the specified tile size is smaller than the tolerance when I do the following point cloud clip:
8 sdo_geometry(2003,29903, null,
9 mdsys.sdo_elem_info_array(1,1003,3),
10 mdsys.sdo_ordinate_array(316504,316510,234084,234090)),
However the bounds of my point cloud are
316500 to 316511 and 234080 to 234092 and my tolerance during point cloud creation is set to 0.000015 (I have alterated this value before to make it smaller but nothing seems fit).
Where do I set the "tile size"?
The set consists of 100 points and blk_capacity is set to 50.
Any help is really greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
F.

Hi BKazar,
thanks for responding.
Yes, I tried out all sorts of things and swapped the numbers to see if that would fix the issue. It did not.
I have found out now though what the issue was. When I loaded the data file into Oracle, the guy who gave me the file said that the first column is the longitude, but it wasn't. After switching sdo_point.x and y the error disappeard.
I suppose the sdo_srid was expecting a different range and got confused because my long and lat were swapped.
Cheers,
F.

Similar Messages

Why is the Log Area size much smaller than the log volume

I have been following up on an Early Watch report that has been generated for our production SCM 5.0 system running liveCache 7.6.02 Build 14. The alert says "The LOG volumes size in your system is too small. Recommendation: Configure LOG Volumes to at least 2 GB". There are two interesting things about this.
1) I have spent the last couple of days reading all the OSS Notes, and MaxDB documentation I could find, and this does not seem to be documented as a recommendation anywhere. Does this seem like a realistic recommendation without taking into account the level of change actifity?
2) There is a single log volume allocated with size 2,097,160 KB. In production LC10 and DBMGUI report this to be correct size under volume details, but only list the total log area size as 1,706,328 (81% of the volume size). We have a non-production environment with exactly the same size log volume, but it reports that the log area size is 2,032,008 KB (97% of the volume). What leads to these different amounts of wasted space, and is there any way of getting the database to start using it?
Thanks,
Mark

Hi Natalia,
I did read 869267, several times. It does not answer my questions which is why I posted here.
DBMGUI version = 7.6.00.25
DBMCLI commands for PL1 (Production)
> xinstinfo PL1
IndepData           : /sapdb/data
IndepPrograms       : /sapdb/programs
InstallationPath    : /sapdb/PL1/db
Kernelversion       : KERNEL    7.6.02   BUILD 014-123-152-175
Rundirectory        : /sapdb/data/wrk/PL1
> dbmcli -d PL1 -u control,control
dbmcli on PL1>db_state
OK
State
ONLINE
dbmcli on PL1>info log
OK
END
Name                            | Value
Log Mirrored                    = NO
Log Writing                     = ON
Log Automatic Overwrite         = OFF
Max. Size (KB)                  = 1706328
Backup Segment Size (KB)        = 699048
Used Size (KB)                  = 104640
Used Size (%)                   = 6
Not Saved (KB)                  = 104640
Not Saved (%)                   = 6
Log Since Last Data Backup (KB) = 0
Savepoints                      = 5210
Checkpoints                     = 0
Physical Reads                  = 2469115
Physical Writes                 = 15655616
Queue Size (KB)                 = 48000
Queue Overflows                 = 646
Group Commits                   = 98205
Waits for Logwriter             = 10957511
Max. Waits                      = 10
Average Waits                   = 0
OMS Log Used Pages              = 0
OMS Min. Free Pages             = 0
dbmcli on PL1>param_getvolsall
OK
LOG_MIRRORED                     NO
MAXLOGVOLUMES                    2
MAXDATAVOLUMES                   14
LOG_VOLUME_NAME_001              262145     F /sapdb/PL1/saplog/DISKL001
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0001            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0001
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0002            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0002
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0003            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0003
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0004            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0004
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0005            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0005
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0006            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0006
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0007            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0007
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0008            524289     F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0008
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0009            1048577    F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0009
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0010            1048577    F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0010
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0011            1048577    F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0011
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0012            1048577    F /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0012
dbmcli on PL1>param_directget MAXCPU
OK
MAXCPU 12
dbmcli on PL1>param_directget MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT
OK
MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT     0
dbmcli on PL1>param_directget LOG_IO_QUEUE
OK
LOG_IO_QUEUE    6000
> xinstinfo SL1
IndepData           : /sapdb/data
IndepPrograms       : /sapdb/programs
InstallationPath    : /sapdb/SL1/db
Kernelversion       : KERNEL    7.6.02   BUILD 014-123-152-175
Rundirectory        : /sapdb/data/wrk/SL1
dbmcli on SL1>db_state
OK
State
ONLINE
dbmcli on SL1>info log
OK
END
Name                            | Value
Log Mirrored                    = NO
Log Writing                     = ON
Log Automatic Overwrite         = OFF
Max. Size (KB)                  = 2032008
Backup Segment Size (KB)        = 699048
Used Size (KB)                  = 3824
Used Size (%)                   = 0
Not Saved (KB)                  = 3824
Not Saved (%)                   = 0
Log Since Last Data Backup (KB) = 0
Savepoints                      = 1256
Checkpoints                     = 0
Physical Reads                  = 2178269
Physical Writes                 = 4969914
Queue Size (KB)                 = 16000
Queue Overflows                 = 21201
Group Commits                   = 643
Waits for Logwriter             = 751336
Max. Waits                      = 4
Average Waits                   = 0
OMS Log Used Pages              = 0
OMS Min. Free Pages             = 0
dbmcli on SL1>param_getvolsall
OK
LOG_MIRRORED                     NO
MAXLOGVOLUMES                    2
MAXDATAVOLUMES                   10
LOG_VOLUME_NAME_001              262145     F /sapdb/SL1/saplog/DISKL001
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0001            262145     F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata1/DISKD0001
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0002            262145     F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata2/DISKD0002
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0003            1048577    F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata3/DISKD0003
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0004            1048577    F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata4/DISKD0004
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0005            783501     F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata1/DISKD0005
DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0006            783501     F /sapdb/SL1/sapdata2/DISKD0006
dbmcli on SL1>param_directget MAXCPU
OK
MAXCPU 4
dbmcli on SL1>param_directget MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT
OK
MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT     0
dbmcli on SL1>param_directget LOG_IO_QUEUE
OK
LOG_IO_QUEUE    2000
Thanks for the explaination of the reserved space for the Log Queue pages. This does explain why there is the difference between the two. I think we probably have our log segment size too large. As you can see we do get occasional log queue overflows. Do you suggest we increase the size of our log IO queue higher, and allocate more log volume space to compensate?
select * from SYSINFO.LOGSTATISTICS (on PL1)
1706328;334176;19;334176;19;1879;20305192;64109066;7806480;182151514;12;48000
DBMGUI Log Area Usage
Total Size: 2048.01 MB
Free Log Area: 1330.38 MB
Used Log Area: 335.96 MB
Unsaved Log Area: 335.96
Log since Last Data Backup: 0.00 MB
Thanks,
Mark

VAULT size is smaller than the LIBRARY

my vault size is smaller than the aperture library. is it saving everything? it seems like the two should be the same size or at least close to the same size. i regularly update my vault so that it is current with the library. VAULT = 168 GB | LIBRARY = 262 GB

what is the consequence if i totally turn previews off?
The major consequence is that you will not be able to share images from your library through the media browser. So if you want to email an image for example or add an image to a document you will need to export the image first rather then be able to get the preview from the library.
Also if you have referenced originals and the originals go off-line nothing will appear in the library. If you had previews for those images you would still see them and be able to do tasks like rate them.
Finally some operations might appear slower as you won;t see anything on the scree until the image you are looking at is rendered. With previews while Aperture is rendering the image in the background it will display the preview.
It is possible to selectively maintain previews for some projects and not for others. This might be a comprise position between having previews for al images and having no previews at all.

Thumbnails in the browser 3.3 is smaller than the previous version

thumbnails in the browser 3.3 is smaller than the previous version.

I did this, the difference is very small. for some reason the size of thumbnails was limited in the browser. in split view window if you increase the thumbs are larger. I'll try to photograph the screen to show the difference. excuse my google translator

The estimated project size is larger than the target media chosen

I am at a loss for trying to author a project using Adobe Encore. I first tried to author the project using version CS2. When attempting to export I received the following message:
"The estimated project size is larger than the target media chosen. While this is an estimate, the project may fail to build."
I have authored hundereds of projects in the past, but have never received that message before. I first thought that the problem was with the version of Encore I was using, but I received the exact same error when trying to author the project with Encore CS5.
The project itself has one menu, a motion menu, and one video file. The video file last 152 minutes, and I was attempting to export that to a dual layer DVD. I have since tried exporting the file using Adobe Premier CS5.5 using a variety of settings. I am trying to export it to a DVD-2 file, with the match soure attributes being set to the highest setting. The setting on the main concept MPEG encoder is set to 5. I have tried exporting the file using both constant and varaible bit rates.
When I recently exported the file using a contant bit rate of 6.5, I still had 650.4 MB remaining on my Encore project. I still received the same error about the project size, and so I am thinking that something else is wrong.
I have even exported the video file as an uncompressed AVI file, and then tried encoding it again using both Adobe Premier CS5.5 and the Adobe Encoder. I still get the same error message about file size.
Any help and/or suggestions about how to solve this problem would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Using the Imgburn product worked! It also helped me figure out what the real problem was...
As it turns out, some single-layer DVDs had been mixed in with my dual-layer DVDs. I feel very foolish about this. All of my discs are printable, and so there is no indication written as far as what their capacity is on them.
Encore can be a bit vague in identifying a problem such as this. For example, I can set the settings to plan for a dual-layer disc, and it will display a graphical status indicator with that capacity in mind. When I saw the original file message error I honestly believed that there was a problem with the encoded file instead of the type of disc itself.
Imgburn instantly displayed the discrepancy in the type of disc I had loaded and the needed capacity for the type of project that I was trying to create.
Thanks again for your help!

After importing a Light Room catalog, the files I export, export smaller than the originals - with every option of file ending. I want to export them as DNGs but the files are reduced from around 5000 pixels to about 1700 pixels in length.

Hi All ~ Thanks in advance for your help!
I have been on a support chat with Adobe for 2 hours now and they can't figure this out but hopefully one of you can!
I exported my files as a LightRoom Catalog
I zipped the catalog and the smart previews together
I sent the zipped folder via Dropbox to a photo editor
Editor edited the photos
Editor exported the files as a Lightroom Catalog and zipped them
Editor sent the LR Catalog back to me via Dropbox
I opened the Lightroom Catalog in LR (the pixel dimensions are the same as the originals)
I exported the photos as DNG's (which does not allow for any file size changes - I also tried JPGs and the same thing happened)
     Camera Raw 7.1 and later (I tried them all just to see - and they all rendered the same result)
     Embed Fast Load Data (checked on)
     Embed Original Raw File (check on)
I checked the Pixel dimensions on my exported photos and they are smaller
The original pixel dimensions are:
4912x7360 and the new size (after exporting) is: 1709x2560
But here's the real kicker! WHEN I UPLOAD A PHOTO TO LIGHTROOM FROM MY COMPUTER DIRECTLY (not from a LR catalog), AND EXPORT THAT FILE, IT EXPORTS AT FULL SIZE with no change in the pixels dimensions!

Hi All ~ Thanks in advance for your help!
I have been on a support chat with Adobe for 2 hours now and they can't figure this out but hopefully one of you can!
I exported my files as a LightRoom Catalog
I zipped the catalog and the smart previews together
I sent the zipped folder via Dropbox to a photo editor
Editor edited the photos
Editor exported the files as a Lightroom Catalog and zipped them
Editor sent the LR Catalog back to me via Dropbox
I opened the Lightroom Catalog in LR (the pixel dimensions are the same as the originals)
I exported the photos as DNG's (which does not allow for any file size changes - I also tried JPGs and the same thing happened)
     Camera Raw 7.1 and later (I tried them all just to see - and they all rendered the same result)
     Embed Fast Load Data (checked on)
     Embed Original Raw File (check on)
I checked the Pixel dimensions on my exported photos and they are smaller
The original pixel dimensions are:
4912x7360 and the new size (after exporting) is: 1709x2560
But here's the real kicker! WHEN I UPLOAD A PHOTO TO LIGHTROOM FROM MY COMPUTER DIRECTLY (not from a LR catalog), AND EXPORT THAT FILE, IT EXPORTS AT FULL SIZE with no change in the pixels dimensions!

Why is the sparse bundle so much smaller than the backed up computer...can I be confident all files are backed up?

Hey gang,
iphoto folder became big so I have moved it to an external drive. I made sure the external disk is not excluded from timemachine backup in tm preferences. Backup seemed to take forever (it actually said "preparing for backup" the whole time with a spinning progress bar) ie 24 hours and still the same pogress bar.
i stopped the process as i had no confidence anything was actually happening
When i open up time machine, an earlier version of my imac is there, but the external drive is kind of greyed and i cannot access it.
When I check the sparse bundle size, it is under 200 gb, when my imac is around 600 gb, 900 with the external drive.
Why is the sparse bundle so small relative to the imac? are there hidden data files outside of the sparse bundle? when checking the preferences, it states total included is 921 gb...yet that is not reflected in the sparse bundle size.
I want to be sure iphoto is actually backed up before deleting it from my imac.
thanks anyone!

marten berkman wrote:
I am wondering whether the "processing" progress bar was due to the time capsule freeing up space for the additional data on the new external drive. When I cancelled it, available space on the tc incresed from 200 to 500 gb.
Yes, quite possibly. Especially on Leopard and Snow Leopard, that process on network backups is excruciatingly repetitive and slow. It's improved greatly in Lion and later, but still isn't exactly quick.
The backup complete, i checked the contents of the backed up version of the external drive, and the iphoto folder was the same size as original, so I have confidence that iphoto is backed up. Now I could delete the iphoto from the imac, freeing up tons of space.
Yay!
Still curious why the imac sparsebundle is only 160gb, while my macbook pro sparsebundle is about 700 gb...as though they are inversely named from the computers they back up.
Oh, I didn't realize you had two Macs backing-up to the TC. Which one is the external HD connected to?
Unless you've specifically excluded things, after the initial backup, the sparse bundle should be nearly the size of the data it's backing-up (TM does exclude some things like system work files, most caches and logs, and trash, so the backups are a few GBs smaller). As you do more backups, of course, it will grow.
So please clarify how much data is on each drive, Mac, and sparse bundle.
Also, the 2tb time capsule has 258 gb of 1.8 tb available....am I to suppose that there is hidden backup data not in the sparse bundles?
Sparse bundles are odd critters. They don't automatically shrink when things are deleted from them. Instead, the vacated space is used for new files until it's full, then it begins to grow again. Time Machine will "compact" them when necessary, to reclaim the empty space, but doesn't take the time to do it unless it's out of room.
You can do that manually if you want, per the pink box in Time Machine - Frequently Asked Question #12.
Message was edited by: Pondini

The exported mbox is way smaller than the original?

Hi,
I have a local mail account where the mbox comes in at 1,5GB. When I use the export to mbox function the resulting mbox is only 850MB. I have used the "permanently purge deleted mails" option but that didn't change anything about thos 1,5GB. Should I be concerned that half my mails are missing from my new backup?
Thanks a lot.

You might have accidentally "zoomed" the site (zoom works both to make the font larger and smaller). Try resetting the zoom level first before moving into the font settings. You can do that by pressing '''Ctrl+0''' (''that's a zero'') when you're on the problem site.
This article has more information: [https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/how-do-i-use-zoom How do I use Zoom? | How to | Firefox Help]
Any luck?

Error Code - client cache is smaller than the size of the requested content

Even though we have increased the size of the ccmcache via Control Panel > Configuration Manager, we still get the Error Code 0x87D01202 (-2016407038) "the content
download cannot be performed because the total size of the client cache is smaller than the size of the requested content" The CCMEXEC Service and computer have both been restarted, after increasing the ccmcache size. Which local log
file under C:\Windows\CCM\Logs should we check for more information ?
Thanks

so when you re deploying the client go into your settings and set the variable below:
smscachesize=10240
note:
SMSCACHESIZE
Specifies the size of the client cache folder in megabyte (MB) or as a percentage when used with the PERCENTDISKSPACE or PERCENTFREEDISKSPACE property. If this property is not set, the folder defaults to a maximum size of 5120 MB. The lowest value that you
can specify is 1 MB.
Note
If a new package that must be downloaded would cause the folder to exceed the maximum size, and if the folder cannot be purged to make sufficient space available, the package download fails, and the program or application will not run.
This setting is ignored when you upgrade an existing client and when the client downloads software updates.
Example: CCMSetup.exe SMSCACHESIZE=100
Note
If you reinstall a client, you cannot use the SMSCACHESIZE or SMSCACHEFLAGS installation properties to set the cache size to be smaller than it was previously. If you try to do this, your value is ignored and the cache size is automatically set to the last
size it was previously.
For example, if you install the client with the default cache size of 5120 MB, and then reinstall the client with a cache size of 100 MB, the cache folder size on the reinstalled client is set to 5120 MB.
Twitter: @dguilloryjr LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/dannyjr Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/dguilloryjr

Why the flashback log'size smaller than the archived log ?

hi, all . why the flashback log'size smaller than the archived log ?

Lonion wrote:
hi, all . why the flashback log'size smaller than the archived log ?Both are different.
Flash logs size depends on parameter DB_FLASHBACK_RETENTION_TARGET , how much you want to keep.
Archive log files is dumped file of Online redo log files, It can be either size of Online redo log file size or less depending on online redo size when switch occurred.
Some more information:-
Flashback log files can be created only under the Flash Recovery Area (that must be configured before enabling the Flashback Database functionality). RVWR creates flashback log files into a directory named “FLASHBACK” under FRA. The size of every generated flashback log file is again under Oracle’s control. According to current Oracle environment – during normal database activity flashback log files have size of 8200192 bytes. It is very close value to the current redo log buffer size. The size of a generated flashback log file can differs during shutdown and startup database activities. Flashback log file sizes can differ during high intensive write activity as well.
Source:- http://dba-blog.blogspot.in/2006/05/flashback-database-feature.html
Edited by: CKPT on Jun 14, 2012 7:34 PM

Why is my "Combined PDF" file size smaller than the original files?

Hello!
I am trying to combine two individual PDF files into a single PDF. Each file is 32mb, however when I use acrobat to combine them, the newly created "combined" file is only 19mb. I believe I've taken the necessary steps to ensure no degradation is happening (i.e. selecting Large File Size in the options panel), but I am still puzzled as to how two files can be put together as one and be smaller than the two separate files with out any compression. What am I missing?
Thanks in advance!

When you combine a file it does a "Save As" operation. This re-writes all of the PDF object in the single file and is supposed to clean up the file, whereas the single files may have had multiple saves which when you look at the internals of the PDF file simply add on to the end of the file. In other words you get a more cleanly written and optimized file that is also saved for Fast Web View.

Why Is My Snapshot Smaller Than The Webcam?

I am trying to make a snapshot of the users webcam, but the snapshot is 1/4 the size of the running webcam and doesn't fill the bitmap data section. Also is there a better way I can Add and position the snapshot.?
import flash.display.BitmapData;
import flash.display.DisplayObject;
var bandwidth:int = 0; // Specifies the maximum amount of bandwidth that the current outgoing video feed can use, in bytes per second. To specify that Flash Player video can use as much bandwidth as needed to maintain the value of quality , pass 0 for bandwidth . The default value is 16384.
var quality:int = 100; // this value is 0-100 with 1 being the lowest quality. Pass 0 if you want the quality to vary to keep better framerates
var cam:Camera = Camera.getCamera();
cam.setQuality(bandwidth, quality);
cam.setMode(320,240,30,false); // setMode(videoWidth, videoHeight, video fps, favor area)
video_vobj.attachCamera(cam);
stage.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, takephoto);
var screenS:BitmapData = new BitmapData(320, 240, true, 0xCCCCCCCC);
var screenS_image:Bitmap=new Bitmap(screenS);
function takephoto(e:MouseEvent):void
screenS.draw(video_vobj) ;
addChild(screenS_image) ;
screenS_image.x = 360;
screenS_image.y = 20;

OK…I purchased and downloaded Elements 9.0 for my MACs ( I have two in two different locations). I installed on both and the brushes work as expected on one of them but not the other. Guess that is why I asked about a reinstall….possibly something went wrong on this computer when installed.
I am just trying to create an image for a background paper and have selected a brush. I resize it with the bracket key (and have also tried resizing with the slider on the menu up top). I hover the brush over the area I want to place it and then click. The brush is smaller than the hover image every time. Makes it hard to know where to lace my brush for proper placement. As far as the percentage…..that actually is a guesstimate, but it isn't 50% smaller that's for sure.
Eileen

Why is the version file smaller than the original file, although I didn't make changes in the file? And why is the keywords don't exporting with original files?

Hi! Why is the version file smaller than the original file, although I didn't make changes in the file? And why is the keywords don't exporting with original files?

Wild guess: you're using the the wrong export settings. You'll need to tell us more before we can help you - like the export settings you're usng, the size and format of the originals etc.

Vista & Outlook 2007: Sync with second XP & Outlook 2003 - The passed buffer is too small for the reply data

Dear Community,
I'm synchronising my T3 with two PCs. One with Vista & Outlook 2007 and the other with XP & Outlook 2003. Both with the latest conduit & Hotsync Manager versions installed for each OS based on the availability on the Palm Website.
My problem is that when I synchronise the T3 with either PC and then try to sync it with the other I'm receiving the following error message for the Calendar:
Outlook Calendar
The passed buffer is too small for the reply data.
OLERR:0D-0008
OLERR:0D-0004
OLERR:0D-0001
- Slow Sync
Outlook Calendar synchronization failed
The second time the sync is successful but takes a long time and the actual problem is that it creates duplicates for records previously changed on either PC - but with a sync in between those changes, i.e. no conflict in the sense that the same record was changed in both environments since the last sync. I have configured the conflict handling to establish a hierarchy PC1-T3-PC2 but try to avoid them by synchronising as often as possible.
Has anyone come across that problem or any ideas? Can you somehow adjust the buffer size for the sync? I have been using Lotus Organiser & then the various Outlook versions for a number of years.
Thank you
Rainer
Post relates to: Tungsten T3
Post relates to: Tungsten T3

As they say on TV, "Doh"!!!
I figured out the problem. I started the Sync tool, selected "Settings", then "Mcrosoft Outlook" tab and then "Select Folders" button. I browsed to the proper folders in Outlook (Calendar, Tasks, etc). Select OK enough times and retried the sync.
It worked.

Can Adobe Collage be used for images smaller than the standard 1200 by 789?

Can Adobe Collage be used for images smaller than the standard 1200 by 789?

Hi,
* Photoshop Touch does have very good text capabilites.
* For opening the Collage as an Artwork (Merged layer) in Photoshop Touch, you just need to upload the Collage file to Creative cloud and import it directly into Photoshop Touch.
But if you are looking to preserve all the layers of the Collage file, you should download the Collage file as PSD from Creative Clould and import it in Photoshop Touch as layers.
* Collage does have canvas scalability, you can extend up the canvas on all the four directions. But i think in you case you are looking for having specific custom sizes of the canvas, which is not currently available in Collage. Currently you cannot shrink the canvas below the default canvas size.
Hope this is helpful. Please do revert back if you have more queries.
-Subbi

ORA-13044: the specified tile size is smaller than the tolerance

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for