Versioning in Table

Hi,
I just need some ideas/suggestions on how to implement a "versioning" in my database table with ODI.
My table has the following columns:
TBL_ID | DATA1 | DATA2 | VERSION_NO
1 | X | X | 0
1 | Y | Y | 1
As you can see, for every update made on one particular row of data, a new record is inserted, only with an incremented value of VERSION_NO. Can anyone suggest a good way to implement this in ODI?
Thanks!

Hi Cezar,
I'm looking into Slowly Changing Dimensions right now. Unfortunately, there's far too little documentation on how to implement it. I had to rely on the IKM Description available in the Flow tab of Designer to get an idea on how to go about doing it.
Anyway, can you help me through it, if it's alright?
I defined the following keys in the target datastore:
Surrogate Key - VERSION_NO, should I use an Oracle database sequence or an ODI sequence? I'm not exactly sure how this will work, since this field increments per NATURAL KEY record.
Natural Key - TBL_ID, this is the primary key from the source, so I think I got this right.
Ending Timestamp - TRANSACTION_DATE (forgot to include this in the table description above), this is the changing column.
In the target data store, a Primary Key was defined (TBL_ID + VERSION_NO).
From here on out, I'm no longer sure what to do. :D
Please help,
Jason

Similar Messages

Unable to drop foreign key on a version-enabled table

Hi,
We're using Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.2.0.4.0 - 64bit and I'm trying to delete a foreign key from a version-enabled table.
The constraint shows in ALL_WM_RIC_INFO view. I run exec dbms_wm.beginddl('tablename'), when I inspect the generated <tablename>_LTS I don't see any referential integrity constraints generated on that table ? The constraint i'm trying to delete is from a version-enabled table to a non-version enabled table if that makes a difference.
From what I understand the referential integrity constraint would be generated and I would be able to run something like:
ALTER TABLE <tablename>_LTS DROP CONSTRAINT <constraintname>.
I tried running the above statement using the RIC_NAME from ALL_WM_RIC_INFO view but it fails predictably with:
ORA-02443: Cannot drop constraint - nonexistent constraint
Cause: alter table drop constraint <constraint_name>
Action: make sure you supply correct constraint name.

as I ran into this today as well I feel like answering this question, as I suppose that the thread opener did the same mistake as I did, and maybe
some others do it as well :)
of course you need to open a DDL session on the parent table as well in order to drop foreign key constraints, just as you do when you add them.
so the correct order to make it work would be:
EXECUTE DBMS_WM.BeginDDL('PARENT_TABLE');
EXECUTE DBMS_WM.BeginDDL('CHILD_TABLE');
ALTER TABLE CHILD_TABLE_LTS
DROP CONSTRAINT FOREIGN_KEY_NAME
EXECUTE DBMS_WM.CommitDDL('CHILD_TABLE');
EXECUTE DBMS_WM.CommitDDL('PARENT_TABLE');I felt kind of stupid that it took me 1 hour to figure this out ;)
regards,
Andreas

Row locking issue with version enabled tables

I've been testing the effect of locking in version enabled tables in order to assess workspace manager restrictions when updating records in different workspaces and I have encountered a locking problem where I can't seem to update different records of the same table in different sessions if these same records have been previously updated & committed in another workspace.
I'm running the tests on 11.2.0.3. I have ROW_LEVEL_LOCKING set to ON.
Here's a simple test case (I have many other test cases which fail as well but understanding why this one causes a locking problem will help me understand the results from my other test cases):
--Change tablespace names as required
create table t1 (id varchar2(36) not null, name varchar2(50) not null) tablespace XXX;
alter table t1 add constraint t1_pk primary key (id) using index tablespace XXX;
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
insert into t1 values ('1', 'name1');
insert into t1 values ('2', 'name2');
insert into t1 values ('3', 'name3');
commit;
exec dbms_wm.enableversioning('t1');
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
exec dbms_wm.createworkspace('TESTWSM1');
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM1');
--update 2 records in a non-LIVE workspace in preparation for updating in different workspaces later
update t1 set name = name||'changed' where id in ('1', '2');
commit;
quit;
--Now in a separate session (called session 1 for this example) run the following without committing the changes:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
--Now in another session (session 2) update a different record from the same table. The below update will hang waiting on the transaction in session 1 to complete (via commit/rollback):
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
I'm surprised records of different ids can't be updated in different sessions i.e. why does session 1 lock the update of record 2 which is not being updated anywhere else. I've tried this using different non-LIVE workspaces with similar results. I've tried changing table properties e.g. initrans with and still get a lock. The changes to table properties are successfully propagated to the _LT tables but not all the related workspace manager tables created for table T1 above. I'm not sure if this is the issue.
Note an example of the background workspace manager query that may create the lock is something like:
UPDATE TESTWSM.T1_LT SET LTLOCK = WMSYS.LT_CTX_PKG.CHECKNGETLOCK(:B6 , LTLOCK, NEXTVER, :B3 , 0,'UPDATE', VERSION, DELSTATUS, :B5 ), NEXTVER = WMSYS.LT_CTX_PKG.GETNEXTVER(NEXTVER,:B4 ,VERSION,:B3 ,:B2 ,683) WHERE ROWID = :B1
Any help with this will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Hi Ben,
Thanks for your quick response.
I've tested your suggestion and it does work with 2 workspaces but the same problem is enountered when additional workspaces are created.
It seems if multiple workspaces are used in a multi user environment, locks will be inevitable which will degrade performance especially if a long transaction is used.
Deadlocks can also be encountered where eventually one of the sessions is rolled back by the database.
Is there a way of avoiding this e.g. by controlling the creation of workspaces and table updates?
I've updated my test case below to demonstrate the extra workspace locking issue.
--change tablespace name as required
create table t1 (id varchar2(36) not null, name varchar2(50) not null) tablespace XXX;
alter table t1 add constraint t1_pk primary key (id) using index tablespace XXX;
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
insert into t1 values ('1', 'name1');
insert into t1 values ('2', 'name2');
insert into t1 values ('3', 'name3');
commit;
exec dbms_wm.enableversioning('t1');
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
exec dbms_wm.createworkspace('TESTWSM1');
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM1');
update t1 set name = name||'changed' where id in ('1', '2');
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
--end of original test case, start of additional workspace locking issue:
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;
--update record in both workspaces
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '3';
commit;
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM1');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '3';
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
exec dbms_wm.createworkspace('TESTWSM2');
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM2');
update t1 set name = name||'changed2' where id in ('1', '2');
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
--this now gets locked out by session 1
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;
--update record 3 in TESTWSM2
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM2');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '3';
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
--this is still locked out by session 1
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;
--try updating LIVE
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '3';
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
--this is still locked out by session 1
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;
--try updating TESTWSM1 workspace too - so all have been updated since TESTWSM2 was created
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM1');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '3';
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
--this is still locked out by session 1
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;
--try updating every workspace afresh
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changedA' where id = '3';
commit;
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM1');
update t1 set name = 'changedB' where id = '3';
commit;
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM2');
update t1 set name = 'changedC' where id = '3';
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
--this is still locked out by session 1
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;

Unique constraint violation on version enabled table

hi!
we're facing a strange problem with a version enabled table that has an unique constraint on one column. if we rename an object stored in the table (the name-attribute of the object is the one that has a unique constraint on the respective column) and rename it back to the old name again, we get an ORA-00001 unique constraint violation on the execution of an update trigger.
if the constraint is simply applied as before to the now version enabled table, I understand that this happens, but shouldn't workspace manager take care of something like that when a table with unique constraints is version enabled? (the documentation also says that) because taking versioning into account it's not that we try to insert another object with the same name, it's the same object at another point in time now getting back it's old name.
we somewhat assume that to be a pretty standard scenario when using versioned data.
is this some kind of bug or do we just miss something important here?
more information:
- versioning is enabled on all tables with VIEW_WO_OVERWRITE and no valid time support
- database version is 10.2.0.1.0
- wm installation output:
ALLOW_CAPTURE_EVENTS OFF
ALLOW_MULTI_PARENT_WORKSPACES OFF
ALLOW_NESTED_TABLE_COLUMNS OFF
CR_WORKSPACE_MODE OPTIMISTIC_LOCKING
FIRE_TRIGGERS_FOR_NONDML_EVENTS ON
NONCR_WORKSPACE_MODE OPTIMISTIC_LOCKING
NUMBER_OF_COMPRESS_BATCHES 50
OWM_VERSION 10.2.0.1.0
UNDO_SPACE UNLIMITED
USE_TIMESTAMP_TYPE_FOR_HISTORY ON
- all operations are done on LIVE workspace
any help is appreciated.
EDIT: we found out the following: the table we are talking about is the only table where the unique constraint is left. so there must have been a problem during version enabling. on another oracle installation we did everything the same way and the unique constraint wasn't left there, so everything works fine.
regards,
Andreas Schilling
Message was edited by:
aschilling

hi!
we're facing a strange problem with a version enabled table that has an unique constraint on one column. if we rename an object stored in the table (the name-attribute of the object is the one that has a unique constraint on the respective column) and rename it back to the old name again, we get an ORA-00001 unique constraint violation on the execution of an update trigger.
if the constraint is simply applied as before to the now version enabled table, I understand that this happens, but shouldn't workspace manager take care of something like that when a table with unique constraints is version enabled? (the documentation also says that) because taking versioning into account it's not that we try to insert another object with the same name, it's the same object at another point in time now getting back it's old name.
we somewhat assume that to be a pretty standard scenario when using versioned data.
is this some kind of bug or do we just miss something important here?
more information:
- versioning is enabled on all tables with VIEW_WO_OVERWRITE and no valid time support
- database version is 10.2.0.1.0
- wm installation output:
ALLOW_CAPTURE_EVENTS OFF
ALLOW_MULTI_PARENT_WORKSPACES OFF
ALLOW_NESTED_TABLE_COLUMNS OFF
CR_WORKSPACE_MODE OPTIMISTIC_LOCKING
FIRE_TRIGGERS_FOR_NONDML_EVENTS ON
NONCR_WORKSPACE_MODE OPTIMISTIC_LOCKING
NUMBER_OF_COMPRESS_BATCHES 50
OWM_VERSION 10.2.0.1.0
UNDO_SPACE UNLIMITED
USE_TIMESTAMP_TYPE_FOR_HISTORY ON
- all operations are done on LIVE workspace
any help is appreciated.
EDIT: we found out the following: the table we are talking about is the only table where the unique constraint is left. so there must have been a problem during version enabling. on another oracle installation we did everything the same way and the unique constraint wasn't left there, so everything works fine.
regards,
Andreas Schilling
Message was edited by:
aschilling

Problem by adding one spatial column to the version-enabled table

Hello, I'm trying to modify one version-enabled table T1 like this:
--table definition
create table T1
(ID NUMBER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
NAME VARCHAR2 (256),
FUNCTION VARCHAR2 (256));
--enable versioning
EXECUTE DBMS_WM.EnableVersioning('T1','VIEW_WO_OVERWRITE');
I'd like to add one spatial column to this table by:
-- modify metada view for spatial indexing
INSERT INTO USER_SDO_GEOM_METADATA (TABLE_NAME, COLUMN_NAME, DIMINFO, SRID)
VALUES ('T1_LT', 'ANCHOR',
MDSYS.SDO_DIM_ARRAY
(MDSYS.SDO_DIM_ELEMENT('X', 0.000, 100000.000, 0.0005),
MDSYS.SDO_DIM_ELEMENT('Y', 0.000, 100000.000, 0.0005),
MDSYS.SDO_DIM_ELEMENT('Z', -100, 1000, 0.0005)) , 81989002);
-- table modification - add a column and create a spatial index
EXECUTE DBMS_WM.BeginDDL('T1');
ALTER TABLE T1_LTS ADD ("ANCHOR" MDSYS.SDO_GEOMETRY);
CREATE INDEX T1_SPX on T1_LTS(ANCHOR) INDEXTYPE is MDSYS.SPATIAL_INDEX;
EXECUTE DBMS_WM.CommitDDL('T1');
By finishing of the DDL operation with EXECUTE DBMS_WM.CommitDDL('T1') I get an error message:
"SQL> EXECUTE DBMS_WM.CommitDDL('T1');
BEGIN DBMS_WM.CommitDDL('T1'); END;
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-20171: WM error: 'CREATE TABLE' and 'CREATE SEQUENCE' privileges needed.
ORA-06512: at "SYS.WM_ERROR", line 342
ORA-06512: at "SYS.WM_ERROR", line 359
ORA-06512: at "SYS.LTUTIL", line 8016
ORA-06512: at "SYS.LT", line 11925
ORA-06512: at line 1
What is wrong here? The Oracle 10g DB is installed on Windows 2003 Server, OWM_VERSION - 10.2.0.1.0.
Regards,
Viktor

Hi,
You need to explicitly grant the create table and create sequence privileges to the user owning the table. It is not enough for these to be granted by using a role. This restriction is documented in the user guide.
Also, you should add the entry in the user_sdo_geom_metadata view on the t1_lts table, which is the table to which you are actually adding the geometry column, after calling beginDDL. CommitDDL will make the necessary changes, which in this case would be to add an entry for both t1 and t1_lt.
Regards,
Ben

Applying the 10.2.0.4 database patchset with version-enabled tables

We recently applied the 10.2.0.4 database patchset to a database where we had a few version-enabled tables. Applying the patchset took a bit longer than expected and looking through the log, it took about 30 minutes to upgrade Workspace Manager.
1) I know in the past that Workspace Manager patches were separate from database patches. Metalink NOTE:341353.1 "Why does the Workspace Manager version differ from the current RDBMS patchset version" seems to indicate that this is no longer the case,
>
From patchset release V10.2.0.4 onwards, the Oracle Workspace Manager updates are integrated with the generic RDBMS patchsets.
>
But that statement seems to be an afterthought in a document clarifying a separate behavior. Is there another document (Metalink or otherwise) that discusses this change directly?
2) Does anyone have a good feeling for how long applying this and future patchsets should take when there are potentially large version-enabled tables in the system? I am hoping/ assuming that it is not a linear relationship, because the version-enabled tables we have at the moment are rather small. But I don't know whether the upgrade time is basically a constant or whether there is a dependency on the size of the version-enabled tables, the number of version-enabled tables, etc.
I am concerned that we may end up with very large version-enabled tables which would require substantial downtime when we apply future patchsets whether or not we needed the Workspace Manager fixes. I hope/ expect that this is not the case, but thought I would double-check.
Justin

Hi Justin,
#1. I could not find another document that discusses this, but I may just be missing it. I will see if there is something else, and let you know if I find something.
#2. There is a fixed and variable part of the upgrade for Workspace Manager. The fixed potion recompiles all of the packages/views, modifies metadata tables, etc used directly by Workspace Manager. The other potion is done for each version enabled table. First, the view and triggers maintained by Workspace Manager are rebuilt. This is generally a quick operation as it is not dependent on the size of the table. There is also the potential for data migration for each of the rows of the versioned table. If needed, this would take much longer to complete, but this type of migration has not been needed since about version 9.2. If you are upgrading from a version newer than this, then this part of the migration wold not be necessary.
Regards,
Ben

Serializable transactions and initrans parameter for version enabled tables

Hi,
we want to use serializable transactions when using version enabled tables, so we need to set initrans parameter >= 3 for such tables.
Change made during BEGINDDL - COMMITDDL process is not done for LT table. I think that initrans parameter is not checked at all during BEGINDDL-COMMITDDL process, because skeleton table has initrans=1 even if LT table has different value of this parameter.
-- table GRST_K3_LT has initrans = 1
exec dbms_wm.beginddl('GRST_K3');
alter table grst_k3_lts initrans 3;
exec dbms_wm.commitddl('GRST_K3');
-- table GRST_K3_LT has initrans = 1
During enableversioning this parameter is not changed, so this script succesfully set initrans for versioned tables.
-- table GRST_K3 has initrans = 1
alter table grst_k3 initrans 3;
exec dbms_wm.enableversioning('GRST_K3','VIEW_WO_OVERWRITE');
-- table GRST_K3_LT has initrans = 3
We use OWM 10.1.0.3 version.
We cannot version disable tables. I understand that change can be done after manually disabling trigger NO_WM_ALTER.
Are there any problems with using serializable transactions when reading data in version enabled tables? We will not use serializable transactions for changing data in version enabled tables.
thanks for Your help
Jan VeleÅ¡Ãk

Hi,
You are correct. We do not currently support the initrans parameter during beginDDL/commitDDL. However, as you indicated, we will maintain any value that is set before enableversioning. If this is a critical issue for you, then please file a TAR and we can look into adding support for it in a future release.
Also, there are no known issues involving serializable transactions on versioned tables.
Thanks,
Ben

Altering Version enabled tables

Hallo,
i was wondering what happens when you alter an version-enabled table?
I don't find anything about it in the Oracle Workspace Manager infopapers
For instance: I have an table with colums A B C
i add a row1 at time1
Then i delete colum C and add a colum D
i add a row2 at time 2
What do i get when i query the table at time1 and time2 ?
gotodate(time1) -> row1 with ABC ? AB ? ABD? ABCD ? ...
gotodate(time2) -> row2 with ABD ? ABCD ? ...
How does Oracle store this information?
Thanks,
Bart

Hi,
You can't alter versioned tables directly. You need to use the beginDDL/commitDDL procedures. DDL changes are not themselves versioned, so once a change is done, it will apply for all time periods and historical records. So, in your example the table will show columns ABD for all time periods, with either null or default values used for the time periods when the columns did not yet exist. The data from the dropped B column is lost after committing the DDL change.
Regards,
Ben

Problem with version enabling tables with ric.

Hello,
i have the a problem when i want to version enable tables having ref. int. constraits having delete rule cascade or set null.
Is it possible that i can't version enable the tables because of these constraints? How i could solve this problem if i want to keep the delete rule?
thanks,
Orsi Gyulai

Hi,
We are internally creating a <table_name>_g procedure that transfers privileges to the necessary users. If you have a table with that name, it would explain the error.
When using ignore_last_error, it will skip the statement that is selected from the all_wm_vt_errors view. Sometimes, the statement can be safely skipped, while in other cases it cannot be. This procedure will always eventually complete when it is repeatedly called with ignore_last_error set to true. However in doing so, some required objects or privileges may not exist or be in an invalid state.
In your case, you most likely had to skip the 3 or so statements that dealt with the <table_name>_g procedure. Typically, these statements should not be skipped, but you may or may not see a problem with it due to a number of factors.
The best course of action may be to drop the trigger in a beginDDL/commitDDL session, and then recreate it in a separate session. Of course, only do this after renaming the <table_name>_g table that you have. Unfortunately, there is currently no way of getting around this naming convention.
Thanks,
Ben

Unable to run BeginDDL on a version enabled table on OWM 9.2.0.8

Hello,
We running Oracle 9i with OWM 9.2.0.8
We are trying to run BeginDDL on a version enabled table with approx 2.8 million records
in it. And when we try running the statment:
BEGIN
DBMS_WM.BeginDDL('PFS_SPOT_SHOTS');
END;
We get the following error:
ORA-20203: enable/disable versioning or begin/commitDDL is being executed on PFSDB.PFS_SPOT_SHOTS
ORA-06512: at "WMSYS.OWM_DDL_PKG" line 3378
ORA-06512: at "WMSYS.LT", line 11827
ORA-06512: at line 2
We also try running BeginDDL on another version enabled table with no data in it
BEGIN
DBMS_WM.BeginDDL('PFS_DUMMY_POINT');
END;
then we are getting the following error:
ORA-25150: ALTERING of extent parameters not permitted
ORA-06512: at "WMSYS.OWM_DDL_PKG", line 3378
ORA-06512: at "WMSYS.LT", line 11827
ORA-06512: at line 2
Any suggestions in regards to this problem?
Thanks
Gary

1) For the first table PFS_SPOT_SHOTS that we are having trouble with, the query return the following:
select * from wmsys.all_wm_versioned_tables t
where table_name = 'PFS_SPOT_SHOTS';
     TABLE_NAME     OWNER     STATE     HISTORY     NOTIFICATION     NOTIFYWORKSPACES     CONFLICT     DIFF     VALIDTIME
     PFS_SPOT_SHOTS     PFSDB     RB_IND     VIEW_WO_OVERWRITE     NO          NO     NO     YES
2) For the second table PFS_DUMMY_POINT table, the query return the following:
select * from wmsys.all_wm_versioned_tables t
where table_name = 'PFS_DUMMY_POINT';
     TABLE_NAME     OWNER     STATE     HISTORY     NOTIFICATION     NOTIFYWORKSPACES     CONFLICT     DIFF     VALIDTIME
     PFS_DUMMY_POINT     PFSDB     VERSIONED VIEW_WO_OVERWRITE     NO          NO     NO     YES
Other than the PFS_DUMMY_POINT table, the query for other version enabled table also return STATE:VERSIONED except the PFS_SPOT_SHOTS table
We have filed a SR, and the number is : 7599412994
Thank you for your response.

New Version of Table Sorter

Hi All,
I require new version of Table Sorter.
The table sorter that I am using may not be updated.
It doesn't sort the decimal fields.
Thanks,
Nikhil

>
satish jhariya wrote:
> Hi
>
> Use this link to access the [TableSorter File|https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/wiki?path=/display/snippets/tablesorterClassfor+WebDynpro]
>
> Best Regards
> Satish Kumar
Hi Satish,
I've just tried to use the updated code you've added to the Wiki and it doesn't appear to be syntactically correct.
There are two problems I can see - it looks like the Wiki software has corrupted a lot of the code with "Unknown Macro :" added all over the place as well as some special characters being replaced, and some of the lines of code appear to be incomplete.
Could you please have a look at it and correct so that it works as it's useless at the moment?
Thanks,
Gareth.

Spatial Query across schemas. one version enabled table another not -Hanged

Hi,
I am executing a PL/sql procedure where a Spatial query run across two schemas. One table(in x schema) is version enabled and second table(in y schema) is Unversioned. Add to that complexity I am running the procedure from third user logon. I think I have enough previleges, as I won't get any error message.
But, Procedure worked fine when there is no table is version enabled. It started giving problem when one table got version enabled.
I have tried by setting " DBMS_WM.Gotoworkspace('LIVE');" before running spatial query. But still no luck, process just hangs on the spatial query.
I tried by using physical name of the Table (table1_LT) which is making it to work. But, as per Workspace manager guide, applications, programs should NOT use, this physical tables(because it is not the correct way on versioned table).
1. How can I hint to my query, to use a table from only live version?
2. Why Query is hanging forever (even tried by leaving it over night....)
Normally it used to take one or two minutes(before versioning..)
I have posted it Workspace manager forum, But No Luck (people seems to be shy away after seeing "Spatial query" )
Any help is highly appriciated

Hi,
I will need to know more details about the specific query you are performing. So, please do the following:
1. list the actual query that you are using
2. generate an explain plan of the query both before and after the table was version enabled. use @?/rdbms/admin/utlxpls or anything that generates the predicate information.
3. also, give any pertinent details about the table(size of the table, number of rows expected to be returned, column types in the table, etc).
Based on that, I will see if I can suggest a possible hint that may be able to improve the performance of your query.
Regards,
Ben

Exporting Data from one Server to Another server w/ Version Enabled Tables

Hi,
I'm currently having a problem with regards to Exporting data to another server. This is the Scenario:
Source Server is Production Server with all of its Tables in the Schema are Version-Enabled.
Destination Server is a Test Server.
I exported data from Production Server using EXP command. Then in my Test Server I imported my data using IMP command (I already created tablespace and user for the Schema).
Import is successful in my Test server but when I execute my queries, There are no rows returned.
I checked my _LT tables and it contains my data. but when I query from the View created when version was enabled, no result is returned.
Am I missing something when I exported and imported my Schema? Should I have included the WMSYS schema when I created the .dump file?
Thanks in advance.

Hi Stefan,
we tried using Export and Import using Data Pump.
expdp system/password@orcl full=y directory=dmpdir2 dumpfile=FULL_DB.dmp
impdp system/password@orcl full=y table_exists_action=truncate directory=dmpdir2 dumpfile=FULL_DB.dmp
Still the same result as using exp and imp. _LT tables have data but when you query using the View, no results are found.

Versioning of Tables and other Schama objects

Hi!
I want to enable versioning for database schema objects such as Tables, views, and procedures. Table definitions should be updated/changed by means of check-in and check-out. It will be helpful during development.
I have already instralled/configured Oracle Repository using SCM.
I have also followed the procedure given in SCM Help --> Registering Oracle Schema in Repository.

Hi,
You need to enable Versioning support for this. It can be done from RAU's Options menu (Choose "Enable Version Support"). After this you can use Design Editor to create/update tables using checkin/checkin process.
Be aware that enabling versioning support is an irreversible process. Perform this only of you absolutely need versioning support.

Version Management Table values

Dear Friends,
Following are the requirements of client to make the Purchase Order Version active.
Price Change
Qty Change
Change in Material Code
Change in Material Description
Header Text Change
Pl let me know whether all the 5 requirements are possible for PO and also help me to find out the table and field names of the 5 above requirements.
Regards,
ASK

hello,
did you activated the version management in the system. if not activate it through the following menu path,
spro>material management>purchasing>version management> Set Up Version Management for External Purchasing Documents
check the box against your P.org.
once you activate it., create a po with that p.org and try changing that po through me22n. a version tab will appear in header details. make any required changes in po and save it. now go to the versions tab, select the version line and click on the "display changes" button. you'l get a detailed changes list that you have made in the po.
hope this helps,
regards,
vamshi

Versioning in Table

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for