Wrong result for decimal in currency

Hi All,
I loaded the history data by pc_file to the bw systems and when ı check the data in the infocube and in the source file, they are same. But when ı executed the report, for example the value of the keyfigure in the cube and source file is 118,36 but in the report it seems 11836,00. How can it happen??
Please help me on this.
Regards,
Turan

Hi,
There could be scaling used in the reports.
just go to the properties of the RKF and CKF and also key figures and see if some scaling ( *100)is used.
Also try to see if u are making correct inetrpreatation of ,(comma) and .(dots)
Thanks
Ajeet

Similar Messages

Content Search Web Part displaying wrong Results for anonymous Users.

HI Forum Group,
I am getting Wrong results for my content search web part. The requirement is to show the News Description for the selected news item.
I have a catalog site which stores News like
News1
News2
News3
as Items. and i have connected this catalog in publishing site which is anonymous. In the publishing site created one page "News.aspx"added search results webpart which shows all the news item. Added one page "Description.aspx" to show
description to show the selected news item.
When ever user selects any news from news.aspx page it will redirected to description.aspx with the selected item ID
The "Description.aspx" the search results page gets the data based on the URL by QueryString parameter as shown below
The problem is, if i multiple items to open in tabs all the items are showing the data same as the first selected item, though the article ID is different.
Thanks
Sithender

Hi，
Thank you for your feedback on how you were successful in resolving this issue.
Your solution will benefit many other users, and we really value having you as a Microsoft customer.
Have a nice day!
Best Regards，
Lisa Chen
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]

Wrong type for decimal on PpostgreSQL

I am faced with fixing a bug which says that
[i]The torque-generated sql scripts contain a wrong type for decimal on PostgreSQLwhere we get DECIMAL instead of DECIMAL(16,4), which is equivalent to INTEGER.
It is working fine for other database like oracle, db2 etc.
There seems to be the problem in torque-gen-3.1 jar because it
works fine if we use torque-gen-3.2.
torque-gen-3.1 doesent seem to deal with size attribute for postgresSQL.
I am trying this for the past 3 days but still havent managed to get any solution.
Pls help,Thanks in advance.
Regards,
jaay

it works fine if we use torque-gen-3.2That looks like a solution to me. What's your problem
with it?Actually my Boss is not agreeing.He says we have to make changes
only in torque-gen-3.1 only , not to use torque-gen-3.2

Wrong results for context search on empty element tags

I'm using Oracle DBMS 11.1 and 11.2 and created a context index on an XML column (section group: PATH_SECTION_GROUP).
When entering a query like
SELECT count(*) FROM my_table t WHERE contains (t.co_xml,'hasPath(/tag1/tag2)') > 0
I get wrong results if tag2 is an empty element tag (<tag2/>) that appears somewhere within the
XML instance, but NOT directly under tag1.
E.g., the following XML instance is found (but shouldn't!):
<a>
<tag1>bla<tag3>bla</tag3></tag1>
<tag4>bla<tag2/></tag4>
</a>
This seems to happen only for empty element tags. Is this a known bug and does anybody know a workaround?
Thanks in advance for your help!
Roman

I am unable to reproduce the problem. Can you provide a copy and paste of an actual run, including create table, insert data, create index, and select, as I have done below?
SCOTT@orcl_11g> select * from v$version
2 /
BANNER
Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.1.0.6.0 - Production
PL/SQL Release 11.1.0.6.0 - Production
CORE     11.1.0.6.0     Production
TNS for 32-bit Windows: Version 11.1.0.6.0 - Production
NLSRTL Version 11.1.0.6.0 - Production
SCOTT@orcl_11g> create table my_table
2    (co_xml     xmltype)
3 /
Table created.
SCOTT@orcl_11g> insert into my_table values (
2 xmltype ('<?xml version="1.0"?>
3 <tag5>
4    <tag1>bla<tag3>bla</tag3></tag1>
5    <tag4>bla<tag2/></tag4>
6 </tag5>'))
7 /
1 row created.
SCOTT@orcl_11g> create index my_idx
2 on my_table (co_xml)
3 indextype is ctxsys.context
4 parameters ('section group ctxsys.path_section_group')
5 /
Index created.
SCOTT@orcl_11g> SELECT count(*)
2 FROM   my_table t
3 WHERE contains (t.co_xml, 'hasPath (//tag1/tag2)') > 0
4 /
COUNT(*)
         0
SCOTT@orcl_11g> SELECT count(*)
2 FROM   my_table t
3 WHERE contains (t.co_xml, 'hasPath (//tag1/tag3)') > 0
4 /
COUNT(*)
         1
SCOTT@orcl_11g>

Wrong result for query with like and %

I have a strange problem with query with like and %.
When I run this script:
ALTER SESSION SET NLS_SORT = 'BINARY_CI';
ALTER SESSION SET NLS_COMP = 'LINGUISTIC';
-- SELECT * FROM NLS_SESSION_PARAMETERS;
-- drop table test1;
CREATE TABLE TEST1(K1 NVARCHAR2(80));
INSERT INTO TEST1 VALUES ('gsdk');
INSERT INTO TEST1 VALUES ('ąxyz');
INSERT INTO TEST1 VALUES ('ŁFa');
INSERT INTO TEST1 VALUES ('ła');
INSERT INTO TEST1 VALUES ('Śab');
INSERT INTO TEST1 VALUES ('Śrrrb');
commit;
select * from TEST1 where k1 like N'Ł%';
I get this:
K1
ŁFa
ła
Śab <- WRONG
Śrrrb <- WRONG
4 rows selected
When i change datatype to varchar2 this code work correct.
Is this a bug or what ?
The execution plan:
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
SQL_ID d3d64aupz4bb5, child number 2
select * from TEST1 where k1 like N'Ł%'
Plan hash value: 4122059633
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | | | 2 (100)| |
|* 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| TEST1 | 1 | 82 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
1 - filter((NLSSORT("K1",'nls_sort=''BINARY_CI''')>=HEXTORAW('014200'
) AND NLSSORT("K1",'nls_sort=''BINARY_CI''')<HEXTORAW('01610100') ))
Note
- dynamic sampling used for this statement (level=2)

DATABASE NLS CONFIGURATION:
NLS_CHARACTERSET AL32UTF8
NLS_NCHAR_CHARACTERSET     AL16UTF16
NLS_COMP     BINARY
NLS_SORT     BINARY
Oracle version 11.2.0.2.0

BIA Load Check delivers wrong result for high availability

Hi all,
has anyone noticed the BIA Load Check (Function CHECK_BIALOAD_CHECK of class CL_RSDDTREX_SERVICE) handles a high-availability setup in the wrong way?
We have 2 times x blades, with each blade being mirrored in a high-availability setup (dedicated backup mode).
That means our usable space is: x * memory_size of blade
However, the load check calculates the load by doing:
load_factor = size_of_all_indexes / SUM(memory_per_blade)
=> If we have 36 GB/blade and 2 blades + 2 backup blades, total usable memory should be 236 = 72, and NOT 436 = 144!
So the CALCULATED load_factor is only half of the ACTUAL (real) load factor => the alerting for BIA overload is never triggered!
Do we need to write our own load check function then?
Thanx,
Hendrik
Edited by: HMaeder on Jan 20, 2010 5:44 PM

Hello Hendrik
I believe your finding is correct. Backup blades should not be taken into consideration for total memory. Please open a customer message so SAP development can analyze the issue and provide a solution (just cut&paste your posting).
Regards,
Marc
SAP NetWeaver RIG

Getting wrong values for decimal value in Bex report

Hi,
     I am getting some problem in Bexreport decimal values.
   In ODS i am able to look the values for this key figure
(Total PO Release Val)= 140.692,00,the same value in Bex report looks like this $ 140,692.00.
     Here one calculation is going with these above values
   % Used = 'Total PO Release Val' / 'Target Value' * 100
    as per ODS value calculation it is correct = 140.692/1000 * 100 =14.692
   as per Bex it is coming like this = 140,692.00/1000 *100 = 142.692.
    in Bex report Percentage valus is not considering value is taking as 140,692.00 rather than 140.692.I mean to say decemal values are ignoring while calculation in Bexreport.can you any please advice me how to comeout of this problem.Appreciate your help.
Regards
Ramesh

<i> "(Total PO Release Val)= 140.692,00,the same value in Bex report looks like this $ 140,692.00."
</i>
How do you check the ODS value? The amount will only have two decimal places after it, so you can't have a value like 140.692,00. It seems to be an issue of user's decimal notation (where decimal is represented by comma, and thousand seperator by '.'). Go to user profile, change this setting (in default tab) to correct one (ie decimal being represented by '.') and login again and check it. The value that you see in ODS is 'one hundred forty thousand six hundred ninety two, the same that you get in Bex, only the representation is different).

Week function gives wrong result for last week in year

Week(CreateDate(2011,12,25)) returns 51 - correct
Week(CreateDate(2011,12,26)) returns 53 - wrong
It looks like all last weeks of the year are 53 whereas the next year with 53 weeks should be 2015.
See http://tuxgraphics.org/toolbox/calendar.html for example.
I am running CF9 on Windows 7 with Java V6 update 29.
This is causing me a problem. Any ideas for a workaround?
Doug

Here is my general solution for my cfc which seems to work for all dates up to 2100 at least.
Hope it can help if you need a Week function to replace the CF one.
<cffunction name="getISOWeekNum" access="public" returntype="Numeric" hint="Gets ISO week number in which date occurs.">
    <cfargument name="date" type="date" required="true" hint="Date for which you wish to know the week number">
    <cfset var weeknum = 0>
    <cfset var isLeap = isLeapYear(Year(date))>
    <cfset var dayInWeek = dayOfWeek(date)>
    <cfset var isoDayOfWeek = iIf(dayInWeek GT 1, dayInWeek - 1, 7)>
    <cfset var nearestThur = dateAdd("d", 4 - isoDayOfWeek, date)>
    <cfset var fourthDayOfYear = createDate(year(nearestThur), 1, 4)>
    <cfset var fourthDayInWeek = dayOfWeek(fourthDayOfYear)>
    <cfset var fourthIsoDayOfWeek = iif(fourthDayInWeek GT 1, fourthDayInWeek - 1, 7)>
    <cfset var firstThur = dateAdd("d", 4 - fourthIsoDayOfWeek, fourthDayOfYear)>
    <cfset var lastWeek = iIf(fourthDayInWeek EQ 8 OR (isLeap AND fourthDayInWeek EQ 7), 53, 52)>
    <cfset var firstIsoDayOfFirstWeek = dateAdd("d", -(fourthIsoDayOfWeek-1), fourthDayOfYear)>
    <cfset var firstIsoDayOfLastWeek = dateAdd("d", -7, firstIsoDayOfFirstWeek)>
    <cfset var lastIsoDayOfFirstWeek = dateAdd("d", 6, firstIsoDayOfFirstWeek)>
    <cfset var weekDiff = iIf(dateCompare(date, firstIsoDayOfFirstWeek, "d") EQ -1, 0, 1)>
    <cfif dateCompare(date, firstIsoDayOfFirstWeek, "d") EQ -1 AND dateCompare(date, firstIsoDayOfLastWeek, "d") NEQ -1>
        <cfset weeknum = lastWeek>
    <cfelseif dateCompare(date, lastIsoDayOfFirstWeek, "d") NEQ 1 AND dateCompare(date, firstIsoDayOfLastWeek, "d") NEQ -1>
        <cfset weeknum = 1>
    <cfelse>
        <cfset weeknum = weekDiff + (dateDiff("d", firstThur, nearestThur) / 7)>
    </cfif>
    <cfreturn weeknum>
</cffunction>
Doug

Different results for decimal values between SQL and B1 RecordSet

Hi Experts,
This is really a strange one. I have the query below:
SELECT Amount, TaxPrcnt FROM [@Table] WHERE ORDER# = '20246' AND ItemCode = '112488'
The same query gives me 0.085 for TaxPrcnt if I run it in SQL Management Studio, but gives me 8.5 if I run it in B1 Query Generator, and the same if I use RecordSet object in DI. The actual value in the table is 0.085. Anyone know why B1 is multiplying the value by 100?

Hi Ronnie,
sp_prepexec is a system stored procedure used to generate to prepare and execute a parameterized SQL statement. Have a look at:
http://jtds.sourceforge.net/apiCursors.html#_sp_prepexec
Basically, it's another way of passing a query to SQL rather than using a stored procedure. This command shouldn't be converting the data in any way, unless there's a specific cast or calculation in the query itself.
Can you give simple details of the SQL table you created and I'll see if I can replicate the issue.
Kind Regards,
Owen
P.S. Sorry about the query, I wrote that down this morning before all my brain cells were awake Referencing a field by index only works when grouping and sorting.

GetFloatProperty gives wrong result for values out of range

Hi
When the method setFloatProperty is called by setting the float values out of the range,then calling getFloatProperty does not give NumberFormatException.
Float value set more the MAX_VALUE of float returns infinity when getFloatProperty is called.Similar problem occurs with setDoubleProperty.This behavior is confusing.can anyone help me out.
Regards
saroj13

Throwing a NumberFormatException would never make sense in this situation. The exception indicates that you are trying to convert a String to a number, but the String does not contain a valid number. eg. "as3"; when a conversion was attemted would throw a NumberFormatException.
Floats and Doubles in Java comply with the IEEE 754 standard which mandates the behaviour of the types.
Could you explain why you find this confusing?
Hope this helps.

Puzzle why query returned wrong value for last record in update.

Hi all,
10.2.0.4, Windows 32 bit.
Apply 15% dis.count to related 5 items ( total amount 522 ) sorted by lowest amount first (amount = 1).
Last record ( amount = 200 ) will be the total dis.count amount ( 78.3 ) less applied accumulated dis.count amount ( 48.50 ).
Query runs fine without update clause but wrong result for last record with update.
CREATE TABLE "T1"
    "ID"       NUMBER NOT NULL ENABLE,
    "ITEM_ID" VARCHAR2(20 BYTE) NOT NULL ENABLE,
    "AMOUNT"   NUMBER(10,2) NOT NULL ENABLE,
    "dizcount" NUMBER(10,2)
INSERT INTO T1 ( ID, ITEM_ID, AMOUNT, dizcount ) VALUES ( 65, '101', 1, NULL ) ;
INSERT INTO T1 ( ID, ITEM_ID, AMOUNT, dizcount ) VALUES ( 65, '102', 1, NULL ) ;
INSERT INTO T1 ( ID, ITEM_ID, AMOUNT, dizcount ) VALUES ( 65, '201', 200, NULL ) ;
INSERT INTO T1 ( ID, ITEM_ID, AMOUNT, dizcount ) VALUES ( 65, '215', 155, NULL ) ;
INSERT INTO T1 ( ID, ITEM_ID, AMOUNT, dizcount ) VALUES ( 65, '111', 165, NULL ) ;
UPDATE t1 a
SET a.dizcount =
(SELECT
    CASE
      WHEN rec_count = row_count
      THEN (78.3 - NVL(lag(temp_total,1) over ( order by rec_count) ,0))-- 78.3 is total dizcount amount from 522 * .15
      ELSE disc_amt
    END amt
FROM
    (SELECT id,
      item_id,
      disc_amt,
      rec_count,
      row_count,
      CASE
        WHEN rec_count != row_count -- accumulate dizcount amount except for last record
        THEN SUM(disc_amt) over (order by rec_count)
        ELSE 0
      END temp_total
    FROM
      (SELECT ID ,
        item_id,
        amount amt,
        ROUND(amount * .15,1) disc_amt, -- dizcount is 15%
        row_number () over (order by amount) rec_count,
        COUNT ( *) over () row_count
      FROM t1
      WHERE ID = 65
    GROUP BY id,
      item_id,
      disc_amt,
      rec_count,
      row_count
    )b
WHERE a.item_id = b.item_id
);Regards
Zack
Edited by: Zack.L on Jul 26, 2010 1:26 AM

Zack.L wrote:
Query runs fine without update clause but wrong result for last record with update.Not sure why but looks like another case in favour of MERGE.
MERGE INTO T1
using (SELECT id, item_id,
    CASE
      WHEN rec_count = row_count
      THEN (78.3 - NVL(lag(temp_total,1) over ( order by rec_count) ,0))-- 78.3 is total dizcount amount from 522 * .15
      ELSE disc_amt
    END amt
FROM
    (SELECT id,
      item_id,
      disc_amt,
      rec_count,
      row_count,
      CASE
        WHEN rec_count != row_count -- accumulate dizcount amount except for last record
        THEN SUM(disc_amt) over (order by rec_count)
        ELSE 0
      END temp_total
    FROM
      (SELECT ID ,
        item_id,
        amount amt,
        ROUND(amount * .15,1) disc_amt, -- dizcount is 15%
        row_number () over (order by amount) rec_count,
        COUNT ( *) over () row_count
      FROM t1
      WHERE ID = 65
    GROUP BY id,
      item_id,
      disc_amt,
      rec_count,
      row_count
    ))b
on (t1.id = b.id and t1.item_id = b.item_id)
when matched then update set dizcount = b.amt ;This worked for me. I tested on 11.2 but should work on 10.2.0.4
SQL> select * from t1 order by amount ;
        ID ITEM_ID                  AMOUNT   DIZCOUNT
        65 101                           1         .2
        65 102                           1         .2
        65 215                         155       23.3
        65 111                         165       24.8
        65 201                         200       29.8p.s. BTW, not sure if you want the column names in different cases, but your script, as it is, gave me an error (on 11.2)

[svn:fx-trunk] 10877: Fix a small syntax error in Path bounds calculations that could result in wrong bounds for edge cases involving MoveSegments .

Revision: 10877
Author:   [email protected]
Date:     2009-10-05 15:23:37 -0700 (Mon, 05 Oct 2009)
Log Message:
Fix a small syntax error in Path bounds calculations that could result in wrong bounds for edge cases involving MoveSegments.
Thanks go to Min for noticing the bug!
QE notes: None
Doc notes: None
Bugs: None
Reviewer: Deepa
Tests run: checkintests
Is noteworthy for integration: No
Modified Paths:
    flex/sdk/trunk/frameworks/projects/spark/src/spark/primitives/Path.as

orangekay wrote:
That is absolutely unreadable.
I agree completely. How about also providing a link to a set of input files so that we could actually run the code ourselves? Otherwise, there is no chance to debug the source code, it is just a mess.
You might have better luck with an older version of the file. To quote the comments:
// Modified on March 31, 2005. Initialized maxchange in nonlinvoltra() as
// INFTY. Replaced crnmbr() by a similar, but faster routine interior().
// Many thanks to Stuart Anderson for pointing out this shortcut.
I suspect that the "interior" function is just plain incorrect. It doesn't matter if it runs on some other OS. Something about it is wrong and the code is so cryptic that it can't be deciphered.

Wrong Search result for Employee Resp.lD when searching Sales Order

Hi All,
Happy new year first of all,
I encounter a problem when using search sales order in WebUI. I am using SAP CRM 2007 SP4.
I notice that the search result by using Employee Responsible ID as criteria, is returning Person Responsible
instead !
I entered both partner function in sales order document (Employee Responsible => BP 1234 and
Person Responsible => BP 4567).
Although in Search criteria selection I choose Employee Responsible ID, but when I put
the BP 1234, the search result is blank. And when I change the value to BP 4567, I can see the result
shows that document. But BP 4567 is Person Responsible, how come it gives the result for Employee
Responsible??
This is totally wrong! I couldn't find SAP NOTE or same issue mentioned here in SDN.
Did I miss it? Please kindly share your find out if you have same case or solution for this.
Thank you and will be rewarded.
Cheers,
Gun

Hi Robert,
Which config are you refer to in SPRO ?
Partner Function Determination ?
By attention to the Relat. Category change, we can not simply change it (although it can fix this
problem). I read the field info :
In many cases this is predefined in the system, based on the partner function category chosen. You can assign the corresponding relationship type freely if:
- you select the partner function category undefined partneror
- you have yourself defined the relationship category to
So did you try it? fixed the problem? or have you encounter further problem?
Rgds,
Gun.

Select for update gives wrong results. Is it a bug?

Hi,
Select for update gives wrong results. Is it a bug?
CREATE TABLE TaxIds
TaxId NUMBER(6) NOT NULL,
LocationId NUMBER(3) NOT NULL,
Status NUMBER(1)
PARTITION BY LIST (LocationId)
PARTITION P111 VALUES (111),
PARTITION P222 VALUES (222),
PARTITION P333 VALUES (333)
ALTER TABLE TaxIds ADD ( CONSTRAINT PK_TaxIds PRIMARY KEY (TaxId));
CREATE INDEX NI_TaxIdsStatus ON TaxIds ( NVL(Status,0) ) LOCAL;
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100101, 111, NULL);
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100102, 111, NULL);
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100103, 111, NULL);
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100104, 111, NULL);
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (200101, 222, NULL);
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (200102, 222, NULL);
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (200103, 222, NULL);
--Session_1 return TAXID=100101
select TAXID from TAXIDS where LOCATIONID=111 and NVL(STATUS,0)=0 AND rownum=1 for update
--Session_2 waits commit
select TAXID from TAXIDS where LOCATIONID=111 and NVL(STATUS,0)=0 AND rownum=1 for update
--Session_1
update TAXIDS set STATUS=1 Where TaxId=100101;
commit;
--Session_2 return 100101 opps!?
--Session_1 return TAXID=100102
select TAXID, STATUS from TAXIDS where LOCATIONID=111 and NVL(STATUS,0)=0 AND rownum=1 for update
--Session_2 waits commit
select TAXID, STATUS from TAXIDS where LOCATIONID=111 and NVL(STATUS,0)=0 AND rownum=1 for update
--Session_1
update TAXIDS set STATUS=1 Where TaxId=100102;
commit;
--Session_2 return 100103

This is a bug. Got to be a bug.
This should be nothing to do with indeterminate results from ROWNUM, and nothing to do with read consistency at the point of statement start time in session2., surely.
Session 2 should never return 100101 once the lock from session 1 is released.
The SELECT FOR UPDATE should restart and 100101 should not be selected as it does not meet the criteria of the select.
A statement restart should ensure this.
A number of demos highlight this.
Firstly, recall the original observation in the original test case.
Setup
SQL> DROP TABLE taxids;
Table dropped.
SQL>
SQL> CREATE TABLE TaxIds
2 (TaxId NUMBER(6) NOT NULL,
3   LocationId NUMBER(3) NOT NULL,
4   Status NUMBER(1))
5 PARTITION BY LIST (LocationId)
6 (PARTITION P111 VALUES (111),
7   PARTITION P222 VALUES (222),
8   PARTITION P333 VALUES (333));
Table created.
SQL>
SQL> ALTER TABLE TaxIds ADD ( CONSTRAINT PK_TaxIds PRIMARY KEY (TaxId));
Table altered.
SQL>
SQL> CREATE INDEX NI_TaxIdsStatus ON TaxIds ( NVL(Status,0) ) LOCAL;
Index created.
SQL>
SQL>
SQL> Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100101, 111, NULL);
1 row created.
SQL> Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100102, 111, NULL);
1 row created.
SQL> Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100103, 111, NULL);
1 row created.
SQL> Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100104, 111, NULL);
1 row created.
SQL> Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (200101, 222, NULL);
1 row created.
SQL> Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (200102, 222, NULL);
1 row created.
SQL> commit;
Commit complete.
SQL> Original observation:
Session1>SELECT taxid
2 FROM   taxids
3 WHERE locationid    = 111
4 AND    NVL(STATUS,0) = 0
5 AND    ROWNUM        = 1
6 FOR UPDATE;
     TAXID
    100101
Session1>
--> Session 2 with same statement hangs until
Session1>BEGIN
2   UPDATE taxids SET status=1 WHERE taxid=100101;
3   COMMIT;
4 END;
5 /
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
Session1>
--> At which point, Session 2 returns
Session2>SELECT taxid
2 FROM   taxids
3 WHERE locationid    = 111
4 AND    NVL(STATUS,0) = 0
5 AND    ROWNUM        = 1
6 FOR UPDATE;
     TAXID
    100101
Session2>There's no way that session 2 should have returned 100101. That is the point of FOR UPDATE. It completely reintroduces the lost UPDATE scenario.
Secondly, what happens if we drop the index.
Let's reset the data and drop the index:
Session1>UPDATE taxids SET status=0 where taxid=100101;
1 row updated.
Session1>commit;
Commit complete.
Session1>drop index NI_TaxIdsStatus;
Index dropped.
Session1>Then try again:
Session1>SELECT taxid
2 FROM   taxids
3 WHERE locationid    = 111
4 AND    NVL(STATUS,0) = 0
5 AND    ROWNUM        = 1
6 FOR UPDATE;
     TAXID
    100101
Session1>
--> Session 2 hangs again until
Session1>BEGIN
2   UPDATE taxids SET status=1 WHERE taxid=100101;
3   COMMIT;
4 END;
5 /
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
Session1>
--> At which point in session 2:
Session2>SELECT taxid
2 FROM   taxids
3 WHERE locationid    = 111
4 AND    NVL(STATUS,0) = 0
5 AND    ROWNUM        = 1
6 FOR UPDATE;
     TAXID
    100102
Session2>Proves nothing, Non-deterministic ROWNUM you say.
Then let's reset, recreate the index and explicity ask then for row 100101.
It should give the same result as the ROWNUM query without any doubts over the ROWNUM, etc.
If the original behaviour was correct, session 2 should also be able to get 100101:
Session1>SELECT taxid
2 FROM   taxids
3 WHERE locationid    = 111
4 AND    NVL(STATUS,0) = 0
5 AND    taxid         = 100101
6 FOR UPDATE;
     TAXID
    100101
Session1>
--> same statement hangs in session 2 until
Session1>BEGIN
2   UPDATE taxids SET status=1 WHERE taxid=100101;
3   COMMIT;
4 END;
5 /
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
Session1>
--> so session 2 stops being blocked and:
Session2>SELECT taxid
2 FROM   taxids
3 WHERE locationid    = 111
4 AND    NVL(STATUS,0) = 0
5 AND    taxid         = 100101
6 FOR UPDATE;
no rows selected
Session2>Of course, this is how it should happen, surely?
Just to double check, let's reintroduce ROWNUM but force the order by to show it's not about read consistency at the start of the statement - restart should prevent it.
(reset, then)
Session1> select t.taxid
2   from
3    (select taxid, rowid rd
4      from   taxids
5      where locationid = 111
6      and    nvl(status,0) = 0
7      order by taxid) x
8   , taxids t
9   where t.rowid = x.rd
10   and   rownum = 1
11   for update of t.status;
     TAXID
    100101
Session1>
--> Yes, session 2 hangs until...
Session1>BEGIN
2   UPDATE taxids SET status=1 WHERE taxid=100101;
3   COMMIT;
4 END;
5 /
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
Session1>
--> and then
Session2> select t.taxid
2   from
3    (select taxid, rowid rd
4      from   taxids
5      where locationid = 111
6      and    nvl(status,0) = 0
7      order by taxid) x
8   , taxids t
9   where t.rowid = x.rd
10   and   rownum = 1
11   for update of t.status;
     TAXID
    100102
Session2>Session 2 should never be allowed to get 100101 once the lock is released.
This is a bug.
The worrying thing is that I can reproduce in 9.2.0.8 and 11.2.0.2.

How to determine the second decimal of currency is equal to 0.

Hi guys,
My problem is how to determine the second decimal of currency is equal to 0.
i.e: 130.23 the second decimal is 3.
Thx in advance.
Points will be rewarded.

Hi Vincent,
if you want to check the internal currency value, you can not know from the field contents what is the second decimal. Because ABAP currency fields (CURR) are connected to currency key CUKY. For USD or EUR you have two decimals, japanese yen have no decimals where as some arabian pound have three decimals. The default are 2 decimals; all excetions can be found in table TCURX.
If you WRITE the value it is converted correctly according to the connected currency.
Just multiply the value with 10 to the power of decimals, e.g. USD value * ( 10 ** 2 ). Then do a MOD: second_decimal_of_currency = ( value * ( 10 ** decimals ) mod 10.
If result is zero, then the second decimal of currency is equal to 0.
Regards,
Clemens

Wrong result for decimal in currency

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for