RE: ORA-1410 Silliness

[Koivu, Lisa]

Title: RE: ORA-1410 Silliness

Thanks again Raj.  I will definately look into it.

 

Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Jamadagni, Rajendra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:39 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: ORA-1410 Silliness

Lisa,

 

try to see if you can (I think you should) use dbms_session.free_unused_user_memory ... this is very handy for applications where large pl/sql tables (oops ...  arrays) are used frequently.

 

Raj

______________________________________________________

Rajendra Jamadagni              MIS, ESPN Inc.

Rajendra dot Jamadagni at ESPN dot com

Any opinion expressed here is personal and doesn't reflect that of ESPN Inc.

QOTD: Any clod can have facts, but having an opinion is an art!

-----Original Message-----
From: Koivu, Lisa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:25 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: ORA-1410 Silliness

Not at this point.  I believe when the pl/sql tables get too big it blows up with ora-4031 or one of the common memory errors, I've seen it happen before.  I may have only a stupid windows machine, but I have so much RAM...  kudos to the brilliant people who didn't listen to me and decided what they were going to give me for hardware.

But I digress.  I will try it with bringing down the commit interval (which controls the size of the tables) for more giggles.

And Waleed - I shudder to think of how long this procedure would take if I wasn't using bulk inserts.  It would be forever.   I could run this procedure many times over and still be waiting for the conventional insert to complete.  At this point I'll live with the ora-1410 before I go that route.

Thanks again for your input, both of you