Oracle Scratchpad

May 23, 2017

255 Again!

Filed under: 12c,Infrastructure,Oracle,Troubleshooting — Jonathan Lewis @ 1:10 pm BST May 23,2017

There are so many things that can go wrong when you start using tables with more than 255 columns – here’s one I discovered partly because I was thinking about a client requirement, partly because I had a vague memory of a change in behaviour in 12c and Stefan Koehler pointed me to a blog note by Sayan Malakshinov when I asked the Oak Table if anyone remembered seeing the relevant note. Enough of the roundabout route, I’m going to start with a bit of code to create a table, stick a row in it, then update that row:

rem     Script: wide_table_4.sql
rem     Author: Jonathan Lewis
rem     Dated:  May 2017
rem     Last tested
rem             11.2.0,4

set pagesize 0
set feedback off

spool temp.sql

prompt create table t1(

        'col' || to_char(rownum,'fm0000') || '  varchar2(10),'
where   rownum <= 320

prompt col0321 varchar2(10)
prompt )
prompt /

spool off


set pagesize 40
set feedback on

insert into t1 (col0010, col0280) values ('0010','0280');

update t1 set col0320 ='0320';

column file_no  new_value m_file_no
column block_no new_value m_block_no

        dbms_rowid.rowid_relative_fno(rowid)    file_no,
        dbms_rowid.rowid_block_number(rowid)    block_no,
        dbms_rowid.rowid_row_number(rowid)      row_no

alter system flush buffer_cache;
alter system dump datafile &m_file_no block &m_block_no;

So I’ve written one of those horrible scripts that write a script and then run it. The script creates a table with 320 columns and inserts a row that populates columns 10 and 280. That gets me two row pieces, one consisting of the 255 columns from columns 26 to 280 that goes in as row piece 0, the other consisting of the first 25 columns that goes in as row piece 1; the remaining 40 columns are not populated so Oracle “forgets” about them (“trailing nulls take no space”). The script then updates the row by setting column 320 to a non-null value.

For convenience I’ve then generated the file and block number (and row number, just to show its head piece went in as row 1 rather than row 0) of the row and done a symbolic block dump. The question is: what am I going to see in that block dump ?

Answers (part 1)

Here’s an extract from the block dump from ( is similar) – though I’ve cut out a lot of lines reporting the NULL columns:

0xe:pti[0]      nrow=2  offs=0
0x12:pri[0]     offs=0x1e7a
0x14:pri[1]     offs=0x1e54
tab 0, row 0, @0x1e7a
tl: 49 fb: -------- lb: 0x2  cc: 40
nrid:  0x014000a7.0
col  0: *NULL*
col  1: *NULL*
col  2: *NULL*
col 37: *NULL*
col 38: *NULL*
col 39: *NULL*
tab 0, row 1, @0x1e54
tl: 38 fb: --H-F--- lb: 0x2  cc: 25
nrid:  0x014000a3.0
col  0: *NULL*
col  1: *NULL*
col  2: *NULL*
col 22: *NULL*
col 23: *NULL*
col 24: *NULL*

The block holds two row pieces, and the piece stored as “row 1” is the starting row piece (the H in the flag byte (fb) tells us this). This row piece consists of 25 columns. The next rowpiece (identified by nrid:) is row zero in block 0x014000a3 – that’s block 163 of file 5 – which is the same block as the first row piece. When we look at row zero we see that it holds 40 columns, all null; it’s pointing to a third row piece at row zero in block 0x014000a7 (file 5, block 167), and as corroboration we can also see that the flag byte has no bits set and that tells us that this is just a boring “somewhere in the middle” bit. So it looks like we have to follow the pointer to find the last 255 columns of the table. So let’s take a look at the dump of file 5 block 167:

0xe:pti[0]      nrow=1  offs=0
0x12:pri[0]     offs=0x1e76
tab 0, row 0, @0x1e76
tl: 266 fb: -----L-- lb: 0x1  cc: 255
col  0: *NULL*
col  1: *NULL*
col  2: *NULL*
col 251: *NULL*
col 252: *NULL*
col 253: *NULL*
col 254: [ 4]  30 33 32 30

Take note of the L in the flag byte – that tells us that we’re looking at the last row piece of a multi-piece row. It’s that last 255 columns we were looking for. The mechanics have worked as follows

  • On the simple insert Oracle split the used 280 columns into (25, 255)
  • On the update we grew the used column count from 280 to 320, adding 40 columns. Oracle extended the 255 column row piece to 295, then split it (40, 255) leaving 40 in the original block and migrating the 255 to a new block. So a row that could be only 2 pieces is now

So a row that could be two pieces in one block is now three pieces spread over two blocks; and there’s worse to come. Go back to the original block dump and check the used space. A good first approximation would be to check the “tl:” (total length) value for each row – this gives you: 49 + 38 bytes; add on a couple of hundred for the general block overhead and stuff like the transaction table and you find you’ve used less than 300 bytes in the block. But I’ve got a little procedure (I published this version of it some time ago) to check for free and used space – and this is what it said about the (ASSM) segment that holds this table:

Unformatted                   :           44 /          360,448
Freespace 1 (  0 -  25% free) :            0 /                0
Freespace 2 ( 25 -  50% free) :            0 /                0
Freespace 3 ( 50 -  75% free) :            0 /                0
Freespace 4 ( 75 - 100% free) :           15 /          122,880
Full                          :            1 /            8,192

Take particular note of the “Full” block at the end of the report – that’s the block where we’ve used up rather less than 300 bytes. In fact if you look again at the first block dump you’ll see the avsp (available space) and tosp (total space) figures of 0x1e3e and 0x1f13 bytes (7,742 and 7,955 bytes). There’s loads of space in the block – but the block is marked in the bitmap space management map as full. That’s really bad news.

On the plus side 12.2 behaves differently, as noted by Sayan in his blog note. We still get the third row piece, but it’s in the same block as the first two and the block doesn’t marked as full in the bitmap.

And there’s still more to come – but it will have to wait a little longer.


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Powered by