By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
448,507 Members | 1,185 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 448,507 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Mysterious 9.2.0.4 (on HP-UX) problem

P: n/a
Can anyone help with a mysterious problem that has arisen since 'upgrading'
from 8 to 9.2.0.4?

The situation is this:

Queries that worked fine under 8 are now producing *really* strange results
under 9.2.0.4. The queries all involve functions, including built-in
functions
like NVL. The strangeness is that less than the expected number of rows is
returned *or* and ORA-01422 is generated. Here's an example:
-- This query yielded 54 records
select distinct worklistname Worklist_Name, worklistcreatets Date_Created,
u2.fullname Created_by,samplename, u2.fullname Closed_By, audittimestamp
Date_Closed
from wkls_histx, lmsuser u1, lmsuser u2
where audittimestamp between '&StartDate' and '&EndDate'
and samplename not like 'JAN-%'
and fullprocname not like '%OBMCLIBRARY%'
and fullprocname not like '%MICROLIBRARY%'
and fullprocname not like '%OBMMLIBRARY%'
and assignedanalyst not in ('None','Not Defined')
and u2.fullname not like 'ChemLMS%'
-- and nvl(u1.state,'NULL') in ('NULL','*','d')
-- and nvl(u2.state,'NULL') in ('NULL','*','d')
and u1.state <> '+'
and u2.state <> '+'
and assignedanalyst=u1.name
and auditusername=u2.name

--
-- Same date range this query yielded 142 records
select distinct worklistname Worklist_Name, worklistcreatets Date_Created,
u2.fullname Created_by,samplename, u2.fullname Closed_By, audittimestamp
Date_Closed
from wkls_histx, lmsuser u1, lmsuser u2
where audittimestamp between '&StartDate' and '&EndDate'
and samplename not like 'JAN-%'
and fullprocname not like '%OBMCLIBRARY%'
and fullprocname not like '%MICROLIBRARY%'
and fullprocname not like '%OBMMLIBRARY%'
and assignedanalyst not in ('None','Not Defined')
and u2.fullname not like 'ChemLMS%'
and nvl(u1.state,'NULL') in ('NULL','*','d')
and nvl(u2.state,'NULL') in ('NULL','*','d')
-- and u1.state <> '+'
-- and u2.state <> '+'
and assignedanalyst=u1.name
and auditusername=u2.name
The difference between the two is that in the second example the nvl
function has been replaced by something that is functionally equivalent. It
has been verified that under Oracle 8 the two queries return the same number
of rows.

In another example, using a user-defined function, the number of rows
returned depends on the breadth of the criteria (the query is too complex to
show here), with broader criteria returning *fewer* rows, until the point
when one of the criteria is LIKE '%' and an ORA-01422 is returned. This
query also worked fine under Oracle 8.

I suspect two things are happening here. One is we are getting hit by a bug
in 9i:

"Incorrect Results (instead of ORA-1422) Selecting Through A Function "

.... but the question is, why on earth should a function that can only
possibly return one row be trying to return more than one?

Has anyone seen anything like this before?

Apologies if any of this is unclear,

Steve S

--

Put the cats out before replying.
Jul 19 '05 #1
Share this question for a faster answer!
Share on Google+

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.