DB2 - Problem description
| Problem IC82127 | Status: Closed |
SECTION ACTUALS VALUES MIGHT BE INCORRECT IN FEDERATED SYSTEM | |
| product: | |
DB2 FOR LUW / DB2FORLUW / 970 - DB2 | |
| Problem description: | |
The section actuals values might be incorrect in federated
system. You can confirm this by comparing the section actuals
with the output of count queries. For example, let us consider
the following SQL:
SELECT COL1, COL2
FROM TAB1, TAB2
WHERE TAB1.COL = TAB2.COL AND COL1 > 9;
The section actuals are shown in access plan ( db2exfmt output )
as follows:
Rows
Rows Actual
RETURN
( 1)
Cost
I/O
|
5
8
HSJOIN
( 2)
32.35
2
/-------+-------\
5 50
10 50
TBSCAN TBSCAN
( 3) ( 4)
12.57 12.57
1 1
| |
50 50
NA NA
TABLE: SCHEMA1 TABLE: SCHEMA1
TAB1 TAB2
Here, optimizer had estimated 5 rows satisfying the condition
'COL1 > 9', but section actuals suggest that there were actually
10 rows.
In order to confirm the correctness of section actuals, the
following count query can be used for this example:
SELECT COUNT(*) AS CNT_GT_9
FROM TAB1
WHERE COL1 > 9;
Here, if value of CNT_GT_9 is not 10 then section actual value
for plan operator TBSCAN(3) is incorrect. | |
| Problem Summary: | |
**************************************************************** * USERS AFFECTED: * * FEDERATED SYSTEM USERS * **************************************************************** * PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: * * The section actual values might be incorrect. It can be * * confirmed by using appropriate count queries as described in * * "Error Description" section. * **************************************************************** * RECOMMENDATION: * * Upgrade to DB2 9.7 Fix Pack 6 * **************************************************************** | |
| Local Fix: | |
| available fix packs: | |
DB2 Version 9.7 Fix Pack 6 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows | |
| Solution | |
Fixed in DB2 9.7 Fix Pack 6 | |
| Workaround | |
not known / see Local fix | |
| Timestamps | |
Date - problem reported : Date - problem closed : Date - last modified : | 20.03.2012 05.06.2012 05.06.2012 |
| Problem solved at the following versions (IBM BugInfos) | |
9.7.FP6 | |
| Problem solved according to the fixlist(s) of the following version(s) | |
| 9.7.0.6 |
|