Wrong results

I have a report that performs different calculations on columns. Every time I include the third column the values in the origianl two columns change almost double in amount. How can I prevent this?
SELECT
a.org_lvl1 Organization,
SUM (b.actl_curr_mo) Actual,
SUM (b.pln_curr_mo) PLAN,
Sum(c.curr_actl_chrg)Recovery,
FROM
prodtool.t_acct_hier a,
prodtool.t_exps_dist b,
prodtool.t_vol_dist c
WHERE
a.au_id = b.au_id
AND a.au_id = c.au_id
GROUP BY a.org_lvl1

are you sure that there is a one to one relation between a.au_id and c.au_id ? If not check it.

Similar Messages

Wrong results after upgrading 10g database to 11.2.0.2.6

Hi,
Do anyone know, why the following query results are different?
Not Working query:
sql1:
select col1 from tab1
where col1 = (select '123' from dual)
Working query:
sql2:
select col1 from tab1
where col1 = '123';
Both the sql1 and sql2 are returning same reseults in 10g database , but not in 11g.

Pl post OS details along with sample outputs and explain plans from the the sql1 statement from the two databases. These MOS Docs may help also
Things to Consider Before Upgrading to 11.2.0.2 to Avoid Poor Performance or Wrong Results [ID 1320966.1]
Wrong Results on 11.2.0.2 with Function-Based Index and OR Expansion [ID 1264550.1]
Wrong Results/No Rows for Sql Involving Functions in 11.2.0.2. [ID 1380679.1]
HTH
Srini

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]

NOT IN operator giving the wrong results

DB version:10gR2
Why is NOT IN giving the wrong results. Isn't NOT EXISTS operator a flawless alternative to NOT IN?
create table my_table1 (col1 number);
insert into my_table1 values (1);
insert into my_table1 values (2);
commit;
create table my_table2 ( col1 number);
insert into my_table2 values (1);
commit;
select * from my_Table1;
       COL1
          1
          2
select * from my_table2;
       COL2
          1
--correct result
SELECT * FROM my_table1 t1 WHERE NOT EXISTS
(SELECT * FROM my_table2 t2 WHERE t1.col1 = t2.col1)
       COL1
          2
---correct result using IN
SELECT * FROM my_table1 t1 where col1 not in (select col1 FROM my_table2 t2);
       COL1
          2
Inserting a NULL to my_Table2
Now the query using NOT IN is returning wrong results.
insert into my_table2 values (null);
commit;
SELECT * FROM my_table1 t1 where col1 not in (select col1 FROM my_table2 t2);
no rows selected
Query using NOT EXISTS is still giving the right results.
SELECT * FROM my_table1 t1 WHERE NOT EXISTS
   (SELECT * FROM my_table2 t2 WHERE t1.col1 = t2.col1);
       COL1
          2

ScottsTiger wrote:
can i use NOT EXISTS(with a proper Co-related subquery) as a safe alternative to NOT IN?Depends on your data and what you need to achieve.
Personally I avoid using NOT EXISTS or NOT IN if I can really help it.
My preferred method is to outer join the tables together and then remove any resultant rows where a value exists and I didn't want one. ;)

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>

Timestamp - wrong results during clock change

When I run for example:
SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('28.03.2010 02:00:00','DD.MM.YYYY HH24:MI:SS') FROM dual
on worksheet, I receive two different results:
Script Output:
28.03.2010 02:00:00
Query Result:
28.03.2010 03:00:00
What is the reason for the wrong result in "Query Result"?
Rainer

Things that might influence, but could be different for you:
- WinXP SP3 Catalonia/Spain locale (adjusts to summer-time)
- AddVMOption -Duser.language=en
- AddVMOption -Doracle.jdbc.mapDateToTimestamp=false
- sqldev NLS Language/Territory: American/America
Hope that helps,
K.

Wrong result in Web Intelligence Report

Post Author: shriram81
CA Forum: WebIntelligence Reporting
When I run a query for web inteeligence documnet I receive a wrong result. But when I run the same SQL query in SQL analyzer of MS SQL server I get correct result.
e.g. I get the same value of measure object against different dimension in web inteeligence report but I get correct values of measure when I run the query in query analyzer on SQl server
Pl guide me to get correct result in Webi

Post Author: GregPye
CA Forum: WebIntelligence Reporting
Are you copying and pasting the query from WebI into SQL Server? Seems a bit odd, as the SQL should be sent to SQL Server to run...
I would check the report level settings, such as filters, or what have you... also check that there aren't more than one SQL query being run in WebI that you haven't noticed...
Cheers

Query giving wrong results

Below is the query thats giving me wrong results ...can anyone help me figure where i am going wrong :(
SQL> select count(*) from t where source='LP1.1';
COUNT(*)
        69
SQL> select count(*) from tblspring where line_a='LP1.1';
COUNT(*)
       233now when i join these two table ...the total counts exceeds the expected records that i want
SQL> select count(*) from t , tblspring where t.source=tblspring.line_a and t.source='LP1.1';
COUNT(*)
     16077

the thing is i want to filter only those records from table t where the column named - source is equal to the column named line_a from table tblspring from the query in table t i get 69 records ....
now when i match the it table tblspring with the condition
i want the number of records should be less than or equal to 69 but not more than 69
Edited by: Suhail Faraaz on Mar 5, 2011 7:31 AM

Bug 2679062 - Wrong results possible from multi-column INLIST - though stat

Hi,
The following test case is supplied in the metalink in bug no. 2871341, the base bug for this bug is 2679062.
REPRODUCIBILITY:
Reproduces constantly with simple test case below:
TEST CASE:
DROP TABLE A1
CREATE TABLE A1 (X1 VARCHAR2(10), X2 VARCHAR2(10))
REM *********** Create the second table: ***************
DROP TABLE A2
CREATE TABLE A2 (X1 VARCHAR2(10), X2 VARCHAR2(10))
INSERT INTO A1 VALUES ('1','2');
INSERT INTO A2 VALUES ('3','4');
COMMIT;
CREATE INDEX A1_X1 ON A1(X1 );
CREATE INDEX A1_X2 ON A1(X2);
CREATE INDEX A2_X1 ON A2(X1);
CREATE INDEX A2_X2 ON A2(X2);
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW A_ALL AS SELECT * FROM A1 UNION ALL SELECT * FROM A2;
ANALYZE TABLE A1 COMPUTE STATISTICS;
ANALYZE TABLE A2 COMPUTE STATISTICS;
SELECT * FROM A_ALL;
SELECT * FROM A_ALL WHERE (X1='1' AND X2='2') ;
SELECT * FROM A_ALL WHERE ((X1='1' AND X2='2') OR (X1='3' AND X2='4'));
The 2nd query returns answer while the second is not !
The following is published in the 9.2.0.4 fixed bug list:
" 9204 - 2679062 - Wrong results possible from multi-column INLIST "
I have installed 9.2.0.4 patch set on a win 2000 machine Oracle and saw that the above case is actually solved but our application which has a very similar case doesn't.
After investigating I found the following test case that fails, it reproduces only when you have index on all columns (covering index):
drop table t1_1;
drop table t1_2;
create table t1_1(c1 number, c2 number, c3 number);
create table t1_2(c1 number, c2 number, c3 number);
create index t1_1_ix on t1_1(c1, c2, c3);
create index t1_2_ix on t1_2(c1, c2, c3);
create or replace view t1 as select * from t1_1 union all select * from t1_2;
insert into t1_1 values(1, 2, 100);
insert into t1_2 values(1, 2, 200);
commit;
analyze table t1_1 compute statistics;
analyze table t1_2 compute statistics;
prompt
prompt #######################################
prompt try 1 - works fine
prompt #######################################
prompt
select * from t1
where
(c1=1)
and
( (c2=2) and (c3=100)
prompt
prompt #######################################
prompt try 2 - works fine
prompt #######################################
prompt
select * from t1
where
(c1=1)
and
(c2=2) and (c3=200)
prompt
prompt #######################################
prompt try 3 - try 1 OR try 2 does not work !
prompt #######################################
prompt
select * from t1
where
(c1=1)
and
( ( (c2=2) and (c3=100) )
or
( (c2=2) and (c3=200) )
opened a TAR and wanted to share with you.
Tal Olier ([email protected]).

Hi,
The following test case is supplied in the metalink in bug no. 2871341, the base bug for this bug is 2679062.
REPRODUCIBILITY:
Reproduces constantly with simple test case below:
TEST CASE:
DROP TABLE A1
CREATE TABLE A1 (X1 VARCHAR2(10), X2 VARCHAR2(10))
REM *********** Create the second table: ***************
DROP TABLE A2
CREATE TABLE A2 (X1 VARCHAR2(10), X2 VARCHAR2(10))
INSERT INTO A1 VALUES ('1','2');
INSERT INTO A2 VALUES ('3','4');
COMMIT;
CREATE INDEX A1_X1 ON A1(X1 );
CREATE INDEX A1_X2 ON A1(X2);
CREATE INDEX A2_X1 ON A2(X1);
CREATE INDEX A2_X2 ON A2(X2);
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW A_ALL AS SELECT * FROM A1 UNION ALL SELECT * FROM A2;
ANALYZE TABLE A1 COMPUTE STATISTICS;
ANALYZE TABLE A2 COMPUTE STATISTICS;
SELECT * FROM A_ALL;
SELECT * FROM A_ALL WHERE (X1='1' AND X2='2') ;
SELECT * FROM A_ALL WHERE ((X1='1' AND X2='2') OR (X1='3' AND X2='4'));
The 2nd query returns answer while the second is not !
The following is published in the 9.2.0.4 fixed bug list:
" 9204 - 2679062 - Wrong results possible from multi-column INLIST "
I have installed 9.2.0.4 patch set on a win 2000 machine Oracle and saw that the above case is actually solved but our application which has a very similar case doesn't.
After investigating I found the following test case that fails, it reproduces only when you have index on all columns (covering index):
drop table t1_1;
drop table t1_2;
create table t1_1(c1 number, c2 number, c3 number);
create table t1_2(c1 number, c2 number, c3 number);
create index t1_1_ix on t1_1(c1, c2, c3);
create index t1_2_ix on t1_2(c1, c2, c3);
create or replace view t1 as select * from t1_1 union all select * from t1_2;
insert into t1_1 values(1, 2, 100);
insert into t1_2 values(1, 2, 200);
commit;
analyze table t1_1 compute statistics;
analyze table t1_2 compute statistics;
prompt
prompt #######################################
prompt try 1 - works fine
prompt #######################################
prompt
select * from t1
where
(c1=1)
and
( (c2=2) and (c3=100)
prompt
prompt #######################################
prompt try 2 - works fine
prompt #######################################
prompt
select * from t1
where
(c1=1)
and
(c2=2) and (c3=200)
prompt
prompt #######################################
prompt try 3 - try 1 OR try 2 does not work !
prompt #######################################
prompt
select * from t1
where
(c1=1)
and
( ( (c2=2) and (c3=100) )
or
( (c2=2) and (c3=200) )
opened a TAR and wanted to share with you.
Tal Olier ([email protected]).

[HELP] AGO function return wrong result

Hi, i try to implement ago function in OBIEE, but the result is not as expected. Please help me to configure Time Dimension to get this work.
My case:
- I have a time dimension with this configuration:
[http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii176/necrombi/NEO/1-1.png]
Time Hierarchy: Total > Year > Quarter > Month > Day
Year:
Primary key: Calendar_year_cal_year_code
Chronological key: Does not define
Quarter:
Primary key: Calendar_quarter_description
Chronological key: Does not define
Month:
Primary key: Calendar_month_description
Chronological key: Calendar_month_description
Day:
Primary key: Dimension_key
Chronological key: Day_day_code
My ago function: AGO(expression, mywh.D_qn_thoigianDim."month", 1)
I do not understand why i get this wrong results:
[http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii176/necrombi/NEO/2.png]
Does anyone know how to solve this?
Edited by: 864451 on Jun 8, 2011 5:11 AM

Hi, thanks for your reply.
I implemented Time dimension with your recommend, and have time dimension like this:
Time Hierarchy: Total > Year > Quarter > Month > Day
Year:
Primary key: Calendar_year_start_date
Chronological key: Calendar_year_start_date
Quarter:
Primary key: Calendar_quarter_start_date
Chronological key: Calendar_quarter_start_date
Month:
Primary key: Calendar_month_start_date
Chronological key: Calendar_month_start_date
Day:
Primary key: Day
Chronological key: Dimension_key
And Ago function works fine with month level: AGO(expression, mywh.D_qn_thoigianDim."month", n)
But return sum result of 12 month with: AGO(expression, mywh.D_qn_thoigianDim."year", 1)
In my case, i just use AGO(expression, mywh.D_qn_thoigianDim."month", 12) to get year ago value. But i still don't understand clearly about OBIEE Time Serries functions.
Thanks,
Dung Nguyen

Pathfinder produces very wrong results. Long time Illy user. **URGENT**

Running Mac 10.10.1 (newest Yosemite)
Adobe CC
PROBLEM #1
Recently when performing a simple "minus front" with two objects, I get very wrong results. See image below. I created icons that are knocking out the BG behind it. Had no problems with the others until I got to the fork. I created the fork using rectangles, and the new direct select to create round corners feature. I can work around this problem by creating an opacity mask on the BG and pasting in the icon at full black. However, when I import that into inDesign, the fork still shows as it's original color. Ok fine. I can export from AI as a .png and avoid it. But that's a pain, and CC has already been pushing my buttons this week. And I'd rather just figure out the why.
I also rasterized the fork icon in AI, then performed an image trace to vectorize it again - in hopes that this would be a magical fix. It was not. It ended up being a worse result than before, after using minus front.
PROBLEM #2
I found that if I alt-drag these elements, and then perform the minus front, I get very close to what is expected. However, this is where it gets really weird. Once I drag the newly created shape around my artboard, the area that had the minus front performed on it, begins to change. See the pictures below picture one for reference. What the eff. This is really confusing.
Any help would be great. I am putting together a branding guidelines tonight for my client and this happens to be one of those little snags.
Thanks
Problem 1 picture - left side is after minus front
Problem 2 pictures - after minus front, and moved around a few times

You've got the Align-to-Pixel Grid turned on and are not using whole pixels for your objects.

Please Help Urgent:Fast Search returning wrong result sets

Hi All,
We are facing below issue with fast search.
Currently in My project when we are searching for a phrase it is returning wrong result sets.
For example if we search for “Endura”, It is returning documents related to
Endura as well as Centura.
But the expected results are only Endura documents.
When we look in to the documents we didn’t find the search term (“Endura” ) either inside document content or in its meta data.
In order to resolve the issue we tried the below steps
1-
We manually edited and saved the document, to ensure the appropriate Guid association to metadata.
2-
Index reset
3-
Full crawl
But no luck so far.
Please help.Thanks in advance.
Regards
Subrat

Subrat,
This may be related to spellchecking or may be synonym. Spellcheck is based on indexed terms.
The best test would be to run the queries from qrserver (13280) and then look at the spellcheck query transformations. If spellchecking is not doing it, then you must have a synonym setup .Check your keyword/synonyms from the SharePoint side.

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.

Query giving wrong result

Hi
Could anybody tell me why this query is giving the wrong result? The column 'Spend for Selected Period' is showing as far too much (ie exactly 11 times too much!!!) when totalling the 37 invoices involved
SELECT T0.[CardCode], T0.[CardName],T0.[MailCity] AS 'Town', T2.[SlpName] AS 'Rep',
SUM(T1.DocTotal - T1.VatSum) AS 'Spend for Selected Period', MAX(T3.CreateDate) AS 'Last Visit Date'
FROM OCRD T0 left JOIN OINV T1 ON T0.CardCode = T1.CardCode LEFT JOIN OSLP T2 ON T0.SlpCode = T2.SlpCode LEFT JOIN OSCL T3 ON T0.CardCode = T3.Customer
where T0.[CardCode] = 'wyk027/34' AND T1.DocDate BETWEEN '20090101' AND '20091231'
GROUP BY T0.[CardCode], T0.[CardName],T0.[MailCity], T2.[SlpName]
Thanks
Steve

Hi ,
It seems like it is duplicated by the number of service calls.
Try this one:
SELECT T0.CardCode, T0.CardName,T0.MailCity AS 'Town', T2.SlpName AS 'Rep',
SUM(T1.DocTotal - T1.VatSum) AS 'Spend for Selected Period', (select MAX(T3.CreateDate) from OSCL T3 where T0.CardCode = T3.Customer) AS 'Last Visit Date'
FROM OCRD T0 inner JOIN OINV T1 ON T0.CardCode = T1.CardCode inner JOIN OSLP T2 ON T0.SlpCode = T2.SlpCode
where T0.CardCode = '10001' AND T1.DocDate BETWEEN '20090101' AND '20091231'
GROUP BY T0.CardCode, T0.CardName,T0.MailCity, T2.SlpName
Best regards,
Maya

Simple query with like return wrong result

Hi,
I run simple query with like.
If I use parameter I get wrong results.
If I use query without parameter results are ok.
My script:
ALTER SESSION SET NLS_SORT=BINARY_CI;
ALTER SESSION SET NLS_COMP=LINGUISTIC;
-- drop table abcd;
create table abcd (col1 varchar2(10));
INSERT INTO ABCD VALUES ('122222');
insert into abcd values ('111222');
SELECT * FROM ABCD WHERE COL1 LIKE :1; -- wrong result with value 12%
COL1
122222
*111222*
select * from abcd where col1 like '12%'; -- result ok
COL1
122222
I use Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.2.0.1.0 - 64bit Production
and query run in Oracle SQL Developer 3.1.07.

Hi,
welcome to the forum.
When you put some code please enclose it between two lines starting with {noformat}{noformat}
i.e.:
{noformat}{noformat}
SELECT ...
{noformat}{noformat}
You should specify exactly how you run your code.
If I run this statement in SQL Plus:SQL> ALTER SESSION SET NLS_SORT=BINARY_CI;
Session altered.
SQL> ALTER SESSION SET NLS_COMP=LINGUISTIC;
Session altered.
SQL>
SQL> -- drop table abcd;
SQL> create table abcd (col1 varchar2(10));
Table created.
SQL>
SQL> INSERT INTO ABCD VALUES ('122222');
1 row created.
SQL> insert into abcd values ('111222');
1 row created.
SQL>
SQL> SELECT * FROM ABCD WHERE COL1 LIKE :1;
SP2-0552: Bind variable "1" not declared.
SQL>
I got this error. So I wonder how you set value 12%
Please specify exactly how you run your test as we cannot reproduce your problem.
Regards.
Al

SQL Server 2012 Time(7) DataType values Comparison giving wrong result. Please help

We have a Table with StartTime and EndTime columns in Time(7) datatype, so we want to count the rows for each hour from 6 AM to 5 AM. If a record in table is as StartTime= 7 PM to EndTime = 5 AM (a shift of an employee) then the result is wrong beacause
being time(7) datatype the EndTime(5AM)< StartTime(7PM) in 24 hours format so following query gives wrong results.
select
* from EmpSchedule
where (StartTime>='19:00:00.0000000'
OR EndTime>='19:00:00.0000000')
Please help me out. Thanks

DECLARE @clockIns TABLE (employeeID INT, startDateTime DATETIME, endDateTime DATETIME)
INSERT INTO @clockIns (employeeID, startDateTime, endDateTime)
VALUES
(1, '2014-07-01 19:01:00.000', '2014-07-02 04:27:00.000'),
(2, '2014-07-01 18:01:00.000', '2014-07-02 05:27:00.000'),
(3, '2014-07-01 19:01:00.000', '2014-07-02 05:27:00.000'),
(4, '2014-07-01 18:01:00.000', '2014-07-02 04:27:00.000')
SELECT *
FROM @clockIns
WHERE datepart(HOUR,startDateTime) BETWEEN 19 AND 23
OR datepart(HOUR,startDateTime) BETWEEN 0 AND 4
OR datepart(HOUR,endDateTime) BETWEEN 19 AND 23
OR datepart(HOUR,endDateTime) BETWEEN 0 AND 4
Try this out.

Wrong results

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for