On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
This is for the main DB server. Part of the 0.6 transition will
include moving from MySQL to Postgres for the sanity of the database
admins, and improved data integrity.
>>>
>>> ...and still 0 on a real
Matt Amos wrote:
>>> This is for the main DB server. Part of the 0.6 transition will
>>> include moving from MySQL to Postgres for the sanity of the database
>>> admins, and improved data integrity.
>> ...and still 0 on a real benchmark.
>
> if you'd like to help out it would be great if you could
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> Shaun McDonald wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2009, at 12:14, Rolf Bode-Meyer wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/3/26 Matt Amos :
>>>
if we were to convert all the tables to innodb we could add
transactions, but this would mean significant API downtime. ha
Shaun McDonald wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2009, at 12:14, Rolf Bode-Meyer wrote:
>
>> 2009/3/26 Matt Amos :
>>
>>> if we were to convert all the tables to innodb we could add
>>> transactions, but this would mean significant API downtime. happy for
>>> us, then, that we're rolling out 0.6 Real Soon Now wi
On 27 Mar 2009, at 12:14, Rolf Bode-Meyer wrote:
> 2009/3/26 Matt Amos :
>
>> if we were to convert all the tables to innodb we could add
>> transactions, but this would mean significant API downtime. happy for
>> us, then, that we're rolling out 0.6 Real Soon Now with all that
>> transactional a
2009/3/26 Matt Amos :
> if we were to convert all the tables to innodb we could add
> transactions, but this would mean significant API downtime. happy for
> us, then, that we're rolling out 0.6 Real Soon Now with all that
> transactional and FK goodness and a bunch of other cool stuff too!
Talki
Stefan de Konink wrote:
> Dave Stubbs wrote:
>> Some of them are due to different bugs, but in general yes. The
>> relations that reference node 0, 1 and other numbers below about 20
>> are a complete mistake (bug fixed ages and ages ago now) -- those
>> nodes should be removed from the relations.
Dave Stubbs wrote:
> Some of them are due to different bugs, but in general yes. The
> relations that reference node 0, 1 and other numbers below about 20
> are a complete mistake (bug fixed ages and ages ago now) -- those
> nodes should be removed from the relations.
It seems that downloading a r
2009/3/25 Stefan de Konink :
> Dave Stubbs wrote:
>>
>> Who needs SQL?
>> http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/node/292984561/ways
>>
>> So yes. It is.
>
> Thanks very interesting; I didn't realise this could do the trick.
>
>> The API's Way.to_xml_node method strips out invisible nodes that it rea
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> the issue with things referencing deleted items should go away because
>> the transactions wrap the used-by checks.
>
> True; But isn't Rails doing that now too? [I am talking about the main
> database]
no. the current
Stefan de Konink wrote:
> So I collected all the 'problematic' things. I think by what you
> mention, it can be trivially fixed just by fetching all nodes and
> reinserting them again?
s/nodes/ways
___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lis
Dave Stubbs wrote:
> Who needs SQL?
> http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/node/292984561/ways
>
> So yes. It is.
Thanks very interesting; I didn't realise this could do the trick.
> The API's Way.to_xml_node method strips out invisible nodes that it reads.
> http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0
2009/3/25 Stefan de Konink :
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> yeah, the wiki page could probably do with some updating. but you
>> remember this thread last month, right?
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-February/014024.html
>>
>> the issue with things referencing deleted items should go a
Matt Amos wrote:
> yeah, the wiki page could probably do with some updating. but you
> remember this thread last month, right?
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-February/014024.html
>
> the issue with things referencing deleted items should go away because
> the transactions wrap
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> Andy Allan wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
>>
It's a known problem with a fix on the way with 0.6.
>>> Is this already checked that it will be fixed using 0.6? Since currently
>>> the API doesn't se
Andy Allan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
>
>>> It's a known problem with a fix on the way with 0.6.
>> Is this already checked that it will be fixed using 0.6? Since currently
>> the API doesn't seem to be the problem, the lacking referential
>> constraints ins
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
>> It's a known problem with a fix on the way with 0.6.
>
> Is this already checked that it will be fixed using 0.6? Since currently
> the API doesn't seem to be the problem, the lacking referential
> constraints inside the database, and re
Dave Stubbs wrote:
> 2009/3/25 Stefan de Konink :
>> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>> Stefan de Konink wrote:
The amount of 'potlatch' in the attached document
>>> As has been explained to you, you mean the amount of API ;)
>> Yeah yeah... I knew this would trigger you to a response; My next mail
2009/3/25 Stefan de Konink :
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> Stefan de Konink wrote:
>>> The amount of 'potlatch' in the attached document
>>
>> As has been explained to you, you mean the amount of API ;)
>
> Yeah yeah... I knew this would trigger you to a response; My next mail
> includes the b0rk3d
Stefan de Konink wrote:
> I'll also run the 'hey, go away, empty way'-script but those are still
> to be detected.
http://kinkrsoftware.nl/contrib/osm/brokenways.txt.gz
The 'hey borked relation'-script output:
http://kinkrsoftware.nl/contrib/osm/brokenrelations.txt.gz
I'll download the ways fi
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Stefan de Konink wrote:
>> The amount of 'potlatch' in the attached document
>
> As has been explained to you, you mean the amount of API ;)
Yeah yeah... I knew this would trigger you to a response; My next mail
includes the b0rk3d ways and relations. I can already te
Stefan de Konink wrote:
> The amount of 'potlatch' in the attached document
As has been explained to you, you mean the amount of API ;)
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-January/013768.html
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/OSM-Fixer-tp2263
The amount of 'potlatch' in the attached document is in my opinion again
a bit too high. This ran on the planet export of yesterday. So I'll
check it in today.
I'll also run the 'hey, go away, empty way'-script but those are still
to be detected.
Stefan
++--+
23 matches
Mail list logo
