I am curious how you guys deal with the problem that sql%rowcount is not set after a FORALL that is not entered at all. Example of how I solve it below (using a variable v_rowcount and the count of the collection the FORALL is based on). But I have the feeling that there is a smarter approach:
create table tst (id number); -- we start with an empty table
declare
type type_numbers is table of number;
v_numbers type_numbers;
v_rowcount number;
begin
insert into tst values (1);
DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line(sql%rowcount); -- prints 1 which is correct, 1 row inserted
delete from tst;
DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line(sql%rowcount); -- prints 1 which is correct, 1 row deleted
v_numbers := type_numbers(3,4,5);
forall v in 1 .. v_numbers.count
update tst
set id = v_numbers(v)
where id = v_numbers(v);
DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line(sql%rowcount); -- prints 0 which is correct, 0 rows updated
insert into tst values (1);
DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line(sql%rowcount); -- prints 1 which is correct, 1 row inserted
delete from tst;
DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line(sql%rowcount); -- prints 1 which is correct, 1 row deleted
v_numbers := type_numbers();
forall v in 1 .. v_numbers.count
update tst
set id = v_numbers(v)
where id = v_numbers(v);
DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line(sql%rowcount); -- prints 1 which is WRONG, 0 rows updated (this is still the sql%rowcount of the DELETE above)
forall v in 1 .. v_numbers.count
update tst
set id = v_numbers(v)
where id = v_numbers(v);
v_rowcount := 0;
if v_numbers.count > 0 then
v_rowcount := sql%rowcount;
end if;
DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line(v_rowcount); -- prints 0 which is correct, 0 rows updated
end;
/
SQL%ROWCOUNT works with FORALL
See the example below:
So as per my example, It is storing a number of rows affected in SQL%ROWCOUNT even if we are using FORALL. ---- BUT BUT BUT, If I remove 'COMMIT' after 'DELETE' statement then I am also facing the same issue as described by you.
So the solution to your problem is
COMMITstatement. Try to run your code with commit statement just after delete.Hope, This is useful to you.
Updated