Re: In place alter issue

On Nov 26, 5:43 pm, Fernando Nunes <domusonl...@gmail.com> wrote: > bozon wrote: > > On Nov 26, 12:25 pm, "Fernando Nunes" <domusonl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You don't need to fix it... > >> You'll only see the second output after recreating the table. > > >> This is why it's not possible to get all the tables with "pending in-place > >> alters" in a quick way. The "quick" way will always see the tables that > >> *had* a pending alter. > >> And to get a similar output you have to read all the partition pages... > > >> Regards. > > >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:28 PM, bozon <cur...@crowson1.com> wrote: > >>> I am cleaning up my in place alters for my migration to 11.5. I have > >>> everything working. I can find them. I can fake update them. I only > >>> have one problem when I fake update them I get the following after > >>> running oncheck -pT db:table > >>> Home Data Page Version Summary > >>> Version Count > >>> 0 (oldest) 0 > >>> 1 (current) 15961 > >>> I know I don't have any records in the old format but the version is > >>> still around. I fiddled around and found that if I alter the primary > >>> index to clustered I get: > >>> Home Data Page Version Summary > >>> Version Count > >>> 0 (current) 15961 > >>> What is going on and how can I fix it without doing a cluster on the > >>> index that I don't want to do? Or do I even need to fix it? > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Informix-list mailing list > >>> Informix-l...@iiug.org > >>>http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > >> -- > >> Fernando Nunes > >> Portugal > > >>http://informix-technology.blogspot.com > >> My email works... but I don't check it frequently... > > Thanks for your help. > > > Using SQL to find the pending in-place-alters works pretty fast, much > > faster than oncheck does. > > I didn't explain myself correctly. > The "sql way" will check the partition headers. This more or less reads one > page per partition. But as you doubt shows, it only shows the partitions > (tables) that at some point in time were in-place altered. > Oncheck reads all the partitions pages to count how many of them are in each > version. Much slower of course, but it's the only way to really be sure. > The SQL version will keep reporting all the tables, even those you applied > dummy updates to. > > I'm not against the sql way... If the tables found are not many and are not too > big you may get the SQL and the dummy updates for the found tables before you > get the results from oncheck... > > By the way, you could also do the same that oncheck does, with SQL on > sysmaster, but it would take the same amount of time... > > Regards. > > -- > Fernando Nunes > Portugal > > http://informix-technology.blogspot.com > My email works... but I don't check it frequently... I believe there is a sql message to look at all of the pages. At least it was reported to do that in the IBM article that I read. Here is a link to it: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21226410