Application Development Discussions
Join the discussions or start your own on all things application development, including tools and APIs, programming models, and keeping your skills sharp.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

SAPSQL_WA_TOO_SMALL - Work area is too small.

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi All,

I have Z table which was running in Production successfully. Recently I have added another field.

MANDT
JOBID
GUID
SAPGUID
CREATE_DATE
IFACE
ACC_DOC
IDOC_NUM
AWKEY. (Newly added field).

while testing in development and quality there is no issues. But today while running in production it is giving dump whle

inserting record into this table in a separate Z function module :

INSERT zfi_trade_int_st FROM ls_trade_stat.

here the declaration of ls_trade_stat as follows.

data: ls_trade_stat TYPE zfi_trade_int_st.

The dump is saying:

The work area used to hold the values passed for the SQL work area

operation must be at least as wide as the database table you are

accessing.

In this particular case, the database table is 358 bytes wide,

In this particular case, the database table is 358 bytes wide,

but the work area is only 318 bytes wide.

"

I have cross checked with all versions between development and production, table is same and function module is same.

Can any one provide a solution to suppress it.

The strange part is "for initial run there were 6 records failed and last record was got inserted successfully".

How come it has happend like that. Next run will be after few hours. before that I could have a solution from any one if we have.

Thanks

Kasturi

6 REPLIES 6

ThomasZloch
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Strange, please check in SE11 menu whether both database and runtime objects have been activated successfully.

Thomas

0 Kudos

@Thomas.

I have cross-checked both the versions. Everything is same compared to DEV and PRD. If this case happens it would have thrown me in Quality itself. Looks very strange.

The point is in last interface run, last record got successfully posted. So I was in an assumption like "Till the last record the working memory of RFC function module(where we are INSERTING the record) was not up. Now with the last record it was inplace. So waiting for the last run to get hold with sync.

Thanks for your reply.

Any concerns if I still miss suggest me.

Regards

Kasturi

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi, K@$TURI.

There is an inconsistency when you add a new field in the table already having the data.

Try to use SE14 transaction:

1. Run SE14.

2. Choose dictionary object -> Tables.

3. Specify obj. name -> Your Z-table name.

4. Press "Edit" button.

5. On the next screen press "Activate and adjust database".

Best regards,

George Shlyahov.

0 Kudos

Hi, George,

The activation of table I have done with Utility adjustment only.

Utility->Database Object ->Database Utility. without loosing the data I have adjusted it.

Even after facing this issue. with the DEVELOPER role we did the same activity in PRD box aswell.

By that time the interface run was over.

The only point which was deviating us is "In a run which was having 6 records, starting 5 records went errored out with shortdump stating (Work area too small). but last record posted successfully and Z table got updated with the record"

So we are in an assumption like "because after the table extension this is the first interface run and till 5 records the working memory was not sync with the active version. with the 6th record it is in sync". So waiting for the next run which is going to happen after few hours.

Thanks for your advice. "my point was if there is any deviation from the improper work area data reference it would have dumped even for 6th record right. Hope you got my point".

Suggest me if you have any suggestions.

Thanks a lot again.

Regards

Kasturi

0 Kudos

There seems to be a slight chance that what you did in SE14 in production was right in the middle of an interface run, or maybe the import and activation phase of the transport request was around that time. If your next run does not show any problems, then I think we can settle the case.

Thomas

0 Kudos

@Thomas

Once we came across the short dump in a remedy,we went and adjusted the table again.

As you said,thats true next interface will decide.

Fingers crossed.

Thanks & Regards

KASTURI.