We are getting the following error using Oracle:
[Oracle JDBC Driver]Application failover does not support non-single-SELECT statement
The error occurs when we try to make a delete or insert over a large number of rows (tens of millions of rows).
I know that the script works, because it was working for almost an year before these error messages start to pop.
We know that no one change any database configuration, so we figure out that the problem must be on the volume of processed data (row number is growing as time goes by...).
But we never see that kind of error before! What does it means? It seems that a failover engine tries to recover from an error, but when oracle is 'taken over' by this engine, it enter in a more restricted state, where some kinds of queries does not work (like Windows Safe Mode...)
Well, if this is what is happening, how can I get the real error message? The one that trigger the failover mechanism?
BTW, below is one of the deletes that triggers the error:
delete from odf_ca_rnv_av_snapshot_week
(we tried this one just to test the simplest delete we could think of... a truncate won't help us with the real deal :) )
check this link
the error seems to come not from Oracle or JDBC, but from "progress". It means that it can only recover from SELECT statements and not from DML.
You'll have to figure out why the failover occurs in the first place.
Related
I m getting the above error when running the Web Job in multi-threaded environment. I m calling one stored procedure to perform some action, stored procedure has code which Inserts/Updates/Delete records from pretty big temporal tables(3-4M records[not sure if its relevant here]). Every time the job is run it deals with(Insert/Update) around 40K-80K records based on condition. When the single thread is running everything goes fine. But as soon as number of parallel jobs count is set to 2 or more I m getting the error. From initial analysis seems like issue is with Auto generated column values with for SysStartTime and SysEndTime in history table. I have tried one of the solution from internet to reduce 1 second from the date to be saved in those columns as below
DEFAULT (dateadd(second,(-1),sysutcdatetime()))
But its not working. I have read few articles where it says temporal tables does not work properly in multi-threaded environment. Now I m not sure why the issue is happening and how to resolve this in multi-threaded environment.
Can someone here please help me understanding the reason behind the error and how to fix it.
NOTE: I can't make my code to run on single thread. Minimum three threads are required. Converting to single thread is not solution in this case.
Ok, I got an weird problem: I got two server-side api, one is to select data from A table; the Other one is to Insert new record to B table with part of the data and PK from first one. They should not have any problem to each other with the Usual actions.
Somehow, I detected someone which called my select and insert function at less than 0.005 sec on my SQL monitor, which caused S-IX deadlock. So I searched the Internet and found an solution that told me to enable the Snapshot isolation. But I tried it on my test DB(which its total size is about 223MB), that Alter Database command does not show any sight of finishing after 1 hour execution, so this is intolerable to execute it on the Production DB with such long Downtime(Which its data size is bigger than the Test one).
So my question is: Does anyone know the Other way to solve the S-IX deadlock?(Without lower the Throughput.)
P.S.: My DB is SQL Server 2008
I am having this big database on one MSSQL server that contains data indexed by a web crawler.
Every day I want to update SOLR SearchEngine Index using DataImportHandler which is situated in another server and another network.
Solr DataImportHandler uses query to get data from SQL. For example this query
SELECT * FROM DB.Table WHERE DateModified > Config.LastUpdateDate
The ImportHandler does 8 selects of this types. Each select will get arround 1000 rows from database.
To connect to SQL SERVER i am using com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerDriver
The parameters I can add for connection are:
responseBuffering="adaptive/all"
batchSize="integer"
So my question is:
What can go wrong while doing this queries every day ? ( except network errors )
I want to know how is SQL Server working in this context ?
Further more I have to take a decicion regarding the way I will implement this importing and how to handle errors, but first I need to know what errors can arise.
Thanks!
Later edit
My problem is that I don't know how can this SQL Queries fail. When i am calling this importer every day it does 10 queries to the database. If 5th query fails I have to options:
rollback the entire transaction and do it again, or commit the data I got from the first 4 queries and redo somehow the queries 5 to 10. But if this queries always fails, because of some other problems, I need to think another way to import this data.
Can this sql queries over internet fail because of timeout operations or something like this?
The only problem i identified after working with this type of import is:
Network problem - If the network connection fails: in this case SOLR is rolling back any changes and the commit doesn't take place. In my program I identify this as an error and don't log the changes in the database.
Thanks #GuidEmpty for providing his comment and clarifying out this for me.
There could be issues with permissions (not sure if you control these).
Might be a good idea to catch exceptions you can think of and include a catch all (Exception exp).
Then take the overall one as a worst case and roll-back (where you can) and log the exception to include later on.
You don't say what types you are selecting either, keep in mind text/blob can take a lot more space and could cause issues internally if you buffer any data etc.
Though just a quick re-read and you don't need to roll-back if you are only selecting.
I think you would be better having a think about what you are hoping to achieve and whether knowing all possible problems will help?
HTH
I'm part of a team writing an ERP using , Seam, and Jboss, and on one of my pages, I keep getting an SQL error: 8152 whenever I try to input something. SQL error:8152, for those of you who don't know, is when you try to input a value over the maximum limit of the column.
I've double checked my entity and the database, and their maximum value limits are the same (50 nvarchars). In addition, I'm pretty sure that we're not using audit tables. I then put System.out.println(""); all over the place, and found that the error was happening in between these two println(s):
System.out.println("Flushing");
entityManager.flush();
System.out.println("Flushing complete");
Which is part of a method that process all changes to the table. But I'm pretty new to programming and not sure what's going on.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks in advance, Jeff.
P.s. Code on request, but I didn't post it because there is a lot of it all over the place.
I would verify the SQL that is being executed when the flush() is performed. That way you can see the length of your data and verify that it is too big as shown by the DB error.
If you are using Hibernate, you can output SQL to the console. You don't say what your DB is, but if it's SQL Server you can use the profiler to see what SQL is being executed.
We have a merge replication setup on SQL Server that goes like this: 1 SQL server at the office, another SQL server traveling around the world. The publisher is the SQL server at the office.
In about 1% of the cases, two of our tables with a column of XML Data type (not bound to a schema) are replicated with rows containing empty XML columns. ( This only happened when data is sent from the "traveling server" back home, but then again, data seems to be changed more often there ). We only have this in prod. environment ( WAN replication ).
Things i have verified:
The row is replicated, as the last modification date on the row is refreshed but the xml column is empty. Of course it is not empty on the other SQL Server.
No conflicts are displayed in the replication conflicts UI.
It is not caused by the size of the data inside the XML Column as some are very small.
Usually, the problem occurs in batch. ( The xml column of 8-9 consecutive rows will be empty )
The problem occurs if a row was inserted OR updated. No pattern there.
The problem seems to occur, but this is pure speculation on my part when the connection is weaker. ( We've seen this problem happen more often when the server was far away as compared to when it was close by. )
Sorry if i have confused some things, I am not really a DBA, more of a DEV with knowledge of SQL but since the application using the database keeps getting blamed for the problems ( the XML column must not be empty!! ) I have taken it at heart to try and find the problem instead of just manually patching the data each time ( Whats the use of replication if you have to do that? )
If anyone could help out with this problem, or at least suggest some ways of being able to debug / investigate this it would be greatly appreciated.
I did search alot on google and I did find this: Hot Fix . But we do have the latest service pack and the problem seems a bit different.
fyi: We have a replication setup locally here but the problem never occurs. We will be trying a WAN simulator on it as well to see if that can help.
Thanks
Edit: hot fix is now available for my issue: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2591902
After logging this issue with Microsoft, we were able to reproduce the problem without a slow link ( Big thanks to the competent escalation engineer at Microsoft ). The repro is a bit different from our scenario, but highlights the timing issue we were getting perfectly.
Create 2 tables – One parent one child (have a PK-FK relationship)
Insert 2 rows in the parent table
Set up replication – configure merge agent to run ON DEMAND
Sync
Once all is replicated:
On the PUBLISHER: delete one row from the parent table
On the SUBSCRIBER: Insert 2 rows of data that references the parentid you deleted above
Insert 5 rows of data that references the parentid that will stay in the table
Sync, Merge agent will fail, Sync again, Merge agent will succeed
Missing XML data on the publisher on the 5 rows.
Seems it is a bug that is in SQL Server 2005/2008 and 2008R2.
It will be addressed in a hot fix in 2008 and up. ( As SQL Server 2005 is no longer being altered )
Cheers.
You may want to start out by slapping a bandaid on this perplexing situation to buy some time to fully investigate and fix (or more likely get MS to fix it). SQL Data Compare is an excellent tool that might help.
Figured i'd put an update here as this issue got me a few gray hairs and I am somewhat closer to a solution now.
I finally had some time to work on this and managed to reproduce this issue in our test environment, using a WAN simulator and slowing down the link and injecting some random packet loss. ( to best simulate the production environment where the server is overseas on a really bad line ).
After doing some SQL tracing, and some verbose logging here are my conclusions:
When replicating a row with an XML column, the process is done in 2 steps. First an insert is done of the full row but with an empty string for the XML column. Right after, an update is done this time with the XML column having data. Since the link is slow, in some situations a foreign key violation occured.
In this scenario, Table2 depends on Table1. After finishing replicating table1, and starting to replicate table2 (Enumration of insert/updates which takes time on a slow link), some entries were added to table1 and table2. Therefore some inserts on Table2 failed because Table1 entries were not in the database and were only going to be replicated next batch. The next time the replication occured, no more foreign key violations occured, however when it tried to insert the row that had previously failed in Table2 ( XML column row ), the update part of it was missing ( I could see that in the SQL profiler ) and that is why the row ended up after all was done with an empty XML.
Setting "Enforce for replication" to false on the foreign keys seems to address the problem, however I do still think that this whole process should work with the option set to true.
I logged a support call with Microsoft for this. I have sent the traces and logs to Microsoft and will see what they have to say.
I've read this article: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms152529(v=SQL.90).aspx. But for me, setting this option to false is kind of a work around, no?
What do you guys think?
ps: Hope this is clear, tried to explain it the best I could. English is not my first language.