RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
Nope. Tried it with a couple different sessions and no change in behavior. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:22 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC In a message dated 8/24/05 3:59:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'll UPDATE.INDEX and do the LIST.INDEX again and it says the same thing again. Try logging off that session, then back on and try it again. It might work now. Maybe it holds an old pointer with the outdated info. Will --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
What does the L_filename look like? It stores all of the records written to the file while the index was disabled. Perhaps a permission issue on it? Is the file in use while you are doing this? The disable.index won't come into effect on a file until it is closed in basic - perhaps that's also true of enable.index. Perhaps a trigger on the file is keeping it open. The basic command INDICES() may also provide some more info/clues. At this stage you may have to remove the index and rebuild it. Sorry, not much help. Once I found the disable.index caused the entire record to be written to the log each time it was updated I realized it was not going to work for us. There was a problem with the udtsort.exe and indexes - but I think that might have been an earlier version. Colin Alfke Calgary, AB -Original Message- From: Kevin King Is there a BASIC equivalent to the DISABLE.INDEX TCL command on Unidata 5.2? I have a weird situation at a client site now where I'll do a LIST.INDEX on a particular file and it'll say Enabled, Indices require updating, I'll UPDATE.INDEX and do the LIST.INDEX again and it says the same thing again. I've searched through ever scrap of code I can find to see if there's a program writing to this file that is turning off the automatic updates or writing somehow without the index update, and I can't find DISABLE.INDEX or ENABLE.INDEX anywhere in code. Any ideas? -Kevin --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
In a message dated 8/25/2005 6:09:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nope. Tried it with a couple different sessions and no change in behavior. delete index then create it again? Maybe the index is screwy from some craziness in the past. Will --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
No problems. What about putting a wrapper around the disable.index command to log how it's being run? What about ODBC access to the account? I'm not sure what it can do to the index but Colin Alfke Calgary, AB -Original Message- From: Kevin King No triggers, thanks. But you may have hit on something. What if someone disabled the index, then a program opened the file, the index was enabled, but the program still has that file open and thinks the index is still disabled? That might explain a great deal. I have removed the index and rebuilt it - several times. I've deleted the X item from AIX and started the whole deal all over. No change. Today, the DISABLE.INDEX command is temporarily MIA. This is to rule out someone manually entering this command. And now we watch. Thanks for the ideas. I appreciate the feedback. -Kevin --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
I'm considering the wrapper idea, but I figure it's easier to put it under an arcane name for a day or so just to watch. And I've confirmed no ODBC access to this particular file. So far so good. Couple of hours now and no problems. Perhaps it was that DISABLE.INDEX and then the file got opened by BASIC - SB+ BASIC at that, so you know those file buffers may have stayed open like forever... -K -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:08 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC No problems. What about putting a wrapper around the disable.index command to log how it's being run? What about ODBC access to the account? I'm not sure what it can do to the index but --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
No triggers, thanks. But you may have hit on something. What if someone disabled the index, then a program opened the file, the index was enabled, but the program still has that file open and thinks the index is still disabled? That might explain a great deal. I have removed the index and rebuilt it - several times. I've deleted the X item from AIX and started the whole deal all over. No change. Today, the DISABLE.INDEX command is temporarily MIA. This is to rule out someone manually entering this command. And now we watch. Thanks for the ideas. I appreciate the feedback. -Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.PrecisOnline.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:59 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC What does the L_filename look like? It stores all of the records written to the file while the index was disabled. Perhaps a permission issue on it? Is the file in use while you are doing this? The disable.index won't come into effect on a file until it is closed in basic - perhaps that's also true of enable.index. Perhaps a trigger on the file is keeping it open. The basic command INDICES() may also provide some more info/clues. At this stage you may have to remove the index and rebuild it. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
Okay, it's definitely NOT DISABLE.INDEX. The problem has occurred again, but with a slightly different manifestation. LIST.INDEX shows the indexes are enabled, built, and no updates pending. However, when I select the file using that indexed field, I get nothing. If I disable the index and execute the exact same select statement, I get 28 records. Here's the selection statement, and yes, it's Prelude: SELECT BIN.QUEUE WITH BTREE_DEFAULT = 001!002!O] Again, this is UD 5.2 on AIX, and DISABLE.INDEX isn't even around as a verb from TCL. -Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.PrecisOnline.com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
Sorry dude, been there, done that, bought the shirt. I've done this exact sequence dozens of times and the problem persists. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baakkonen, Rodney Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:00 AM To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC IT sounds like it is time to do a 'DELETE.INDEX', 'CREATE.INDEX', 'BUILD.INDEX'. There must be something out of sync and you may never figure out the why. We have had indexes that produced different results when using 'REQUIRE.INDEX' and 'NO.INDEX'. The only way to go forward was to rebuild. We now have a database of our Unidata indexes and a program to do this rebuild if the need arises. - Rod -Original Message- From: Kevin King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:12 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC Okay, it's definitely NOT DISABLE.INDEX. The problem has occurred again, but with a slightly different manifestation. LIST.INDEX shows the indexes are enabled, built, and no updates pending. However, when I select the file using that indexed field, I get nothing. If I disable the index and execute the exact same select statement, I get 28 records. Here's the selection statement, and yes, it's Prelude: SELECT BIN.QUEUE WITH BTREE_DEFAULT = 001!002!O] Again, this is UD 5.2 on AIX, and DISABLE.INDEX isn't even around as a verb from TCL. -Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.PrecisOnline.com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: 8/22/2005 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
Okay, here's some specifics about the problem I'm experiencing: Alternate Key Index Details for File BIN.QUEUEPage 1 File.. BIN.QUEUE Alternate key length.. 35 Node/Block size... 4K OV blocks. 1 (0 in use, 0 overflowed) Indices... 1 (0 D-type) Index updates. Enabled, No updates pending Index-Name.. F-type K-type Built Empties Dups In-DICT S/M F-no/VF-expr BTREE_DEFAULT V TxtYes Yes Yes Yes M OCONV(@ID,G0!5 ) --- Keys in this file look like this: --- LIST BIN.QUEUE 11:49:34 AUG 25 2005 1 BIN.QUEUE. 001!001!O!13738!AAL2C!AAL2C 001!001!C!13591!XL2C!XL2C 001!001!C!13591!XM2A!XM2A 001!001!C!13591!XN3C!XN3C 001!001!C!13591!XO3A!XO3A 001!001!C!13591!XP2B!XP2B 001!001!C!13591!XP4C!XP4C --- Therefore, given that BTREE_DEFAULT is OCONV(@ID,G0!5) these two SELECT statements should return the exact same results: --- :SELECT BIN.QUEUE WITH BTREE_DEFAULT = 001!001] 671 records selected to list 0. CLEARSELECT :SELECT BIN.QUEUE WITH @ID = 001!001] 638 records selected to list 0. --- And as you can see, they return different things. And immediately after this test and a subsequent CLEARSELECT: --- Alternate Key Index Details for File BIN.QUEUEPage 1 File.. BIN.QUEUE Alternate key length.. 35 Node/Block size... 4K OV blocks. 1 (0 in use, 0 overflowed) Indices... 1 (0 D-type) Index updates. Enabled, No updates pending Index-Name.. F-type K-type Built Empties Dups In-DICT S/M F-no/VF-expr BTREE_DEFAULT V TxtYes Yes Yes Yes M OCONV(@ID,G0!5 ) --- Note the Enabled, No updates pending. Then following a BUILD.INDEX BIN.QUEUE ALL: --- :BUILD.INDEX BIN.QUEUE ALL One * represents 1000 records Building BTREE_DEFAULT ... 671 record(s) processed. :SELECT BIN.QUEUE WITH @ID = 001!001] 642 records selected to list 0. CLEARSELECT :SELECT BIN.QUEUE WITH BTREE_DEFAULT = 001!001] 642 records selected to list 0. And though it was corrected via the BUILD.INDEX, it won't last. Here's what's sitting @ AIX: $ ls -l *BIN.QUEUE -rwxrwxrwx 1 root ud 278528 Aug 25 11:55 BIN.QUEUE -rwxrwxrwx 1 root ud49152 Aug 24 13:01 D_BIN.QUEUE -rwxrwxrwx 1 root ud 110592 Aug 25 11:54 X_BIN.QUEUE $ Though I didn't illustrate it, there was no L_ item prior to the BUILD.INDEX. And unfortunately I can't change the programming to factor out this index due to the way the vendor application has been programmed. Getting this index to be reliable seems to be the only solution. Also there are no triggers on this file. Help? P.S. Are there any logs available in Unidata that might illustrate some faults in the indexing processor? -K --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
To the point where the actual file holding the indexes was deleted and created (X_ or idx)? -Original Message- From: Kevin King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:41 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC Sorry dude, been there, done that, bought the shirt. I've done this exact sequence dozens of times and the problem persists. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baakkonen, Rodney Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:00 AM To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC IT sounds like it is time to do a 'DELETE.INDEX', 'CREATE.INDEX', 'BUILD.INDEX'. There must be something out of sync and you may never figure out the why. We have had indexes that produced different results when using 'REQUIRE.INDEX' and 'NO.INDEX'. The only way to go forward was to rebuild. We now have a database of our Unidata indexes and a program to do this rebuild if the need arises. - Rod -Original Message- From: Kevin King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:12 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC Okay, it's definitely NOT DISABLE.INDEX. The problem has occurred again, but with a slightly different manifestation. LIST.INDEX shows the indexes are enabled, built, and no updates pending. However, when I select the file using that indexed field, I get nothing. If I disable the index and execute the exact same select statement, I get 28 records. Here's the selection statement, and yes, it's Prelude: SELECT BIN.QUEUE WITH BTREE_DEFAULT = 001!002!O] Again, this is UD 5.2 on AIX, and DISABLE.INDEX isn't even around as a verb from TCL. -Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.PrecisOnline.com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: 8/22/2005 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
Deleted via DELETE.INDEX, removed via rm, and verified via ls. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baakkonen, Rodney Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:20 PM To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC To the point where the actual file holding the indexes was deleted and created (X_ or idx)? --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
That's precisely how it presented to us. If it was built on an earlier version it would update OK - but as soon as we rebuilt it just wasn't right. Other ideas: Check the *log files in @udthome/bin. Likely udt.log, udt.errlog, not sure if 5.2 had udtsort.log? Make sure you have enough space in /tmp (@udttmp) as the index needs it. Usually you get an error though if it runs out of space. If the rebuild didn't work when everyone was off (and you made sure it was deleted at the Aix level) then you could delete the index (make sure it's gone) copy all of the records out of the file. Re-create the index, copy all of the records back in. I did notice that it looks like the index is defined as a M though it looks like it should be an S. Try re-saving the dict item in SB+, make sure 6 of the UD dictionary is S and then delete and re-create the index - while everyone is off. Good luck Colin Alfke Calgary, AB -Original Message- From: Kevin King I've tried rebuilding the index both while the users are logged on, and when the users are logged off, and the problem persists. We've even rebooted. I've recommended to the client they need to contact the vendor (which is their only path to IBM) so we'll see where that gets us. What's weird is that this worked just fine until a few days ago. I rebuilt the index via BUILD.INDEX and trouble started. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
I've tried both the M and S. I only left it M when I saw this index working perfectly on another site using this same software. Going spelunking for logs now. Thanks. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 2:03 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC That's precisely how it presented to us. If it was built on an earlier version it would update OK - but as soon as we rebuilt it just wasn't right. Other ideas: Check the *log files in @udthome/bin. Likely udt.log, udt.errlog, not sure if 5.2 had udtsort.log? Make sure you have enough space in /tmp (@udttmp) as the index needs it. Usually you get an error though if it runs out of space. If the rebuild didn't work when everyone was off (and you made sure it was deleted at the Aix level) then you could delete the index (make sure it's gone) copy all of the records out of the file. Re-create the index, copy all of the records back in. I did notice that it looks like the index is defined as a M though it looks like it should be an S. Try re-saving the dict item in SB+, make sure 6 of the UD dictionary is S and then delete and re-create the index - while everyone is off. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
Nothing of consequence in the logs. No udtsort.log, but I looked through everything else matching *log. 90% free on /tmp as reported by df. And now it's stopped. It did this yesterday also; stopped in the afternoon and then came back at about 10am this morning. Man, this is some weird kung fu. -K -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 2:03 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC Check the *log files in @udthome/bin. Likely udt.log, udt.errlog, not sure if 5.2 had udtsort.log? Make sure you have enough space in /tmp (@udttmp) as the index needs it. Usually you get an error though if it runs out of space. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
Thanks, but the index - for whatever reason - is on the first 5 of 6 ! delimited fields in the key. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baakkonen, Rodney Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 2:55 PM To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC I guess I am going to have to pay more attention to this thread. So it has to be data related if it can be rebuilt over and over. One thought is that you have some control characters in the data to throw the indexes for a loop. Not always easy to find. We actually found a record today in a Unidata file with a CHAR(255) in it. I don't think an index would like that. But you may have already covered that too. We have about 1200 files indexed and never gotten to this point with an index problem. I will be interested to see what you find. Good luck. Rod -Original Message- From: Kevin King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 2:58 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC Deleted via DELETE.INDEX, removed via rm, and verified via ls. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baakkonen, Rodney Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:20 PM To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC To the point where the actual file holding the indexes was deleted and created (X_ or idx)? --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: 8/22/2005 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
[U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
Is there a BASIC equivalent to the DISABLE.INDEX TCL command on Unidata 5.2? I have a weird situation at a client site now where I'll do a LIST.INDEX on a particular file and it'll say Enabled, Indices require updating, I'll UPDATE.INDEX and do the LIST.INDEX again and it says the same thing again. I've searched through ever scrap of code I can find to see if there's a program writing to this file that is turning off the automatic updates or writing somehow without the index update, and I can't find DISABLE.INDEX or ENABLE.INDEX anywhere in code. Any ideas? -Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.PrecisOnline.com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] [UD] DISABLE.INDEX from BASIC
In a message dated 8/24/05 3:59:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'll UPDATE.INDEX and do the LIST.INDEX again and it says the same thing again. Try logging off that session, then back on and try it again. It might work now. Maybe it holds an old pointer with the outdated info. Will --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
