What would cause ORA-1410 (invalid rowid) on a simple select?
Chuck
Here's the select? Occasionally we get an ORA-1410 on it but 99.9% of
the time it works fine. It's coming from a web based application that
uses a product called hibernate to access to the database.
SELECT DISTINCT flipbook2_.name AS col_0_0_
FROM flip_page_media flippageme0_,
flip_page flippage1_,
flipbook flipbook2_
INNER JOIN user_content flipbook2_1_
ON flipbook2_.content_id = flipbook2_1_.content_id
INNER JOIN content flipbook2_2_
ON flipbook2_.content_id = flipbook2_2_.content_id
WHERE flippage1_.content_id = flipbook2_.content_id
AND flippageme0_.flip_page_id = flippage1_.flip_page_id
AND flippageme0_.media_id = :1
I have checked the indexes used for corruption and found none.
Anurag Varma
Simple selects should not give a ORA-1410.
How did you check the indexes for corruption?
Did you issue an alter table <table> validate structure cascade; ? to
see
if there is a rowid mismatch between the table and index.
Anurag
Chuck
> On Aug 30, 4:02 pm, Chuck <skilover_nos...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> Oracle 10.2.0.2 64 bit, Solaris 10.
>>
>> Here's the select? Occasionally we get an ORA-1410 on it but 99.9% of
>> the time it works fine. It's coming from a web based application that
>> uses a product called hibernate to access to the database.
>>
>> SELECT DISTINCT flipbook2_.name AS col_0_0_
>> FROM flip_page_media flippageme0_,
>> flip_page flippage1_,
>> flipbook flipbook2_
>> INNER JOIN user_content flipbook2_1_
>> ON flipbook2_.content_id = flipbook2_1_.content_id
>> INNER JOIN content flipbook2_2_
>> ON flipbook2_.content_id = flipbook2_2_.content_id
>> WHERE flippage1_.content_id = flipbook2_.content_id
>> AND flippageme0_.flip_page_id = flippage1_.flip_page_id
>> AND flippageme0_.media_id = :1
>>
>> I have checked the indexes used for corruption and found none.
>
>
> Simple selects should not give a ORA-1410.
That's what I thought too. The only time I've even seen this before was
with incorrect use of a "where current of" cursor.
> How did you check the indexes for corruption?
>
> Did you issue an alter table <table> validate structure cascade; ? to
> see
> if there is a rowid mismatch between the table and index.
Yes. I also ran dbv on the datafiles in the index tablespaces.
I am wondering if there is a with the INNER JOIN syntax. That same
syntax has caused problems in defining materialized views before and I
had to convert it to the older style join syntax before it would work.
Unfortunately in this case it's being generated by a 3rd party product
from behind the scenes.
Anurag Varma
Are these regular tables being referred to in the query
.. or are they views?
If views .. do they point to a remote database?
I don't see why INNER JOIN syntax should be suspected as
a cause of ORA-1410. We too have one application using
hibernate without any ORA-01410 issues...
If none of the above applies in your situation .. you
might be better off opening a SR...
Anurag
Jonathan Lewis
"Chuck" <skilove...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:AnFBi.22903$Zg.9225@trnddc08...
When the ORA-01410 occurs are there any
index rebuilds going on at around the same time ?
--
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com
Author: Cost Based Oracle: Fundamentals
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/cbo_book/ind_book.html
The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
Chuck
All tables are normal tables. I opened an SR.
The only reason I mentioned the inner join syntax is because there is a
known issue when using that to define a materialized view. I think it
was that you couldn't use a synonym name with that syntax when creating
an mview or it would raise an error.
I thought maybe hibernate was trying to do some rowid caching and later
trying to access those rows after some other app had deleted them. Some
times these tools get to fancy for the own good. I really don't know
much about hibernate though, not being a developer, and just getting
pulled cold into this issue.
Chuck
> "Chuck" <skilove...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> news:AnFBi.22903$Zg.9225@trnddc08...
>> Oracle 10.2.0.2 64 bit, Solaris 10.
>>
>> Here's the select? Occasionally we get an ORA-1410 on it but 99.9% of the
>> time it works fine. It's coming from a web based application that uses a
>> product called hibernate to access to the database.
>>
>> SELECT DISTINCT flipbook2_.name AS col_0_0_
>> FROM flip_page_media flippageme0_,
>> flip_page flippage1_,
>> flipbook flipbook2_
>> INNER JOIN user_content flipbook2_1_
>> ON flipbook2_.content_id = flipbook2_1_.content_id
>> INNER JOIN content flipbook2_2_
>> ON flipbook2_.content_id = flipbook2_2_.content_id
>> WHERE flippage1_.content_id = flipbook2_.content_id
>> AND flippageme0_.flip_page_id = flippage1_.flip_page_id
>> AND flippageme0_.media_id = :1
>>
>> I have checked the indexes used for corruption and found none.
>
>
> When the ORA-01410 occurs are there any
> index rebuilds going on at around the same time ?
>
Good question. I will check that out.
Chuck
> "Chuck" <skilove...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> news:AnFBi.22903$Zg.9225@trnddc08...
>> Oracle 10.2.0.2 64 bit, Solaris 10.
>>
>> Here's the select? Occasionally we get an ORA-1410 on it but 99.9% of the
>> time it works fine. It's coming from a web based application that uses a
>> product called hibernate to access to the database.
>>
>> SELECT DISTINCT flipbook2_.name AS col_0_0_
>> FROM flip_page_media flippageme0_,
>> flip_page flippage1_,
>> flipbook flipbook2_
>> INNER JOIN user_content flipbook2_1_
>> ON flipbook2_.content_id = flipbook2_1_.content_id
>> INNER JOIN content flipbook2_2_
>> ON flipbook2_.content_id = flipbook2_2_.content_id
>> WHERE flippage1_.content_id = flipbook2_.content_id
>> AND flippageme0_.flip_page_id = flippage1_.flip_page_id
>> AND flippageme0_.media_id = :1
>>
>> I have checked the indexes used for corruption and found none.
>
>
> When the ORA-01410 occurs are there any
> index rebuilds going on at around the same time ?
>
No. There were no rebuilds occurring at the same time.