467,883 Members | 1,204 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 467,883 developers. It's quick & easy.

Database inconsistant?

I recently noticed the
'Database is consistant' parameter of the db cfg changed from Yes to
No, when I did a
'set integrity immediate unchecked' command. the integrity of the
table was compromised, many rows didnt have parent rows.. But what is
this parameter ???

Aug 8 '07 #1
  • viewed: 2044
Share:
5 Replies
"Arun Srinivasan" <ar*******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@57g2000hsv.googlegrou ps.com...
>I recently noticed the
'Database is consistant' parameter of the db cfg changed from Yes to
No, when I did a
'set integrity immediate unchecked' command. the integrity of the
table was compromised, many rows didnt have parent rows.. But what is
this parameter ???
It is not a parameter, it is a status.
Aug 8 '07 #2
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:59:24 -0700, Arun Srinivasan scribbled:
I recently noticed the
'Database is consistant' parameter of the db cfg changed from Yes to No,
when I did a
'set integrity immediate unchecked' command. the integrity of the table
was compromised, many rows didnt have parent rows.. But what is this
parameter ???
The "database_consistent" parameter (which is shown as the "Database is
consistent" parameter in DB CFG) indicates whether there are any pending
transactions that have modified anything. Basically, if all transactions
have been rolled back or committed, it's "Yes", otherwise it's "No".

The purpose, according to the docs, is to determine whether you need to
take any special action if the system crashes. If the value was "Yes"
prior to the crash, no special action is required, otherwise a RESTART
DATABASE command is required.
Cheers,

Dave.
Aug 9 '07 #3
Dave Hughes wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:59:24 -0700, Arun Srinivasan scribbled:
>I recently noticed the
'Database is consistant' parameter of the db cfg changed from Yes to No,
when I did a
'set integrity immediate unchecked' command. the integrity of the table
was compromised, many rows didnt have parent rows.. But what is this
parameter ???

The "database_consistent" parameter (which is shown as the "Database is
consistent" parameter in DB CFG) indicates whether there are any pending
transactions that have modified anything. Basically, if all transactions
have been rolled back or committed, it's "Yes", otherwise it's "No".

The purpose, according to the docs, is to determine whether you need to
take any special action if the system crashes. If the value was "Yes"
prior to the crash, no special action is required, otherwise a RESTART
DATABASE command is required.
I often wonder whether this indicator should simply be removed.
It causes way more anxiety than information.

Cheers
Serge

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Aug 10 '07 #4
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:35:29 -0400, Serge Rielau scribbled:
Dave Hughes wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:59:24 -0700, Arun Srinivasan scribbled:
>>I recently noticed the
'Database is consistant' parameter of the db cfg changed from Yes to
No, when I did a
'set integrity immediate unchecked' command. the integrity of the
table was compromised, many rows didnt have parent rows.. But what is
this parameter ???

The "database_consistent" parameter (which is shown as the "Database is
consistent" parameter in DB CFG) indicates whether there are any
pending transactions that have modified anything. Basically, if all
transactions have been rolled back or committed, it's "Yes", otherwise
it's "No".

The purpose, according to the docs, is to determine whether you need to
take any special action if the system crashes. If the value was "Yes"
prior to the crash, no special action is required, otherwise a RESTART
DATABASE command is required.
I often wonder whether this indicator should simply be removed. It
causes way more anxiety than information.
Might be a good idea. I remember the very first time I noticed "Database
is consistent: NO" in the GET DB CFG output and my immediate thought was
that it was indicating some sort of database corruption! Thankfully I
took a little time to read the reference and discovered it was no big
deal after all. Simply changing the label and reversing the meaning might
avoid several DBA heart attacks in future :-)

Pending transactions: YES

Sounds a lot less frightening than:

Database is consistent: NO
Cheers,

Dave.
Aug 11 '07 #5
Rightly put Dave..
Thanks Dave and Serge..Am happy to get replies from such big names in
db2 world.

Aug 15 '07 #6

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

reply views Thread by Cherrish Vaidiyan | last post: by
8 posts views Thread by Kamlesh | last post: by
1 post views Thread by pintur | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by josh.kuo | last post: by
reply views Thread by Jack | last post: by
reply views Thread by MrMoon | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.