Re: [sqlite] damaged database recovery

2015-01-15 Thread Roger Binns
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/15/2015 12:52 PM, Dave Dyer wrote: > Of course that's possible, but .dump produced what superficially > appeared to be a perfectly consistent text file. Note that .dump writes the output and then on encountering problems attempts the table agai

Re: [sqlite] damaged database recovery

2015-01-15 Thread Dave Dyer
> >Try doing: sqlite3 old-database .dump | sqlite3 fixed-database > >Then verify that "fixed-database" still contains all of your data. This doesn't work on these databases, even undamaged ones. I think it's a buffer size problem with sqlite3. The databases contain some rather long text string

[sqlite] damaged database recovery

2015-01-15 Thread Dave Dyer
> >Try doing: sqlite3 old-database .dump | sqlite3 fixed-database > >Then verify that "fixed-database" still contains all of your data. This doesn't work on these databases, even undamaged ones. I think it's a buffer size problem with sqlite3. The databases contain some rather long text string

Re: [sqlite] damaged database recovery

2015-01-15 Thread Richard Hipp
On 1/15/15, Dave Dyer wrote: > The likely cause of corruption is that this is probably a > database being accessed on a networked disk. > > -- > > sqlite> select * from preference_table where preferenceset='foo'; > sqlite> drop index preferenceindex; > (11) database corruption at line 52020 of [26

Re: [sqlite] damaged database recovery

2015-01-15 Thread Dave Dyer
The likely cause of corruption is that this is probably a database being accessed on a networked disk. -- sqlite> select * from preference_table where preferenceset='foo'; sqlite> drop index preferenceindex; (11) database corruption at line 52020 of [2677848087] (11) statement aborts at 24: [drop

[sqlite] damaged database recovery

2015-01-15 Thread Dave Dyer
The likely cause of corruption is that this is probably a database being accessed on a networked disk. -- sqlite> select * from preference_table where preferenceset='foo'; sqlite> drop index preferenceindex; (11) database corruption at line 52020 of [2677848087] (11) statement aborts at 24: [drop

Re: [sqlite] damaged database recovery

2015-01-15 Thread Richard Hipp
On 1/15/15, Dave Dyer wrote: > >> >> >>> it wasn't possible to drop the index in question >> >>what happened when you tried ? Were you using your own code or the SQLite >> shell tool ? > > sqlite shell tool. Same complaint, "database corrupted". First type: ".log stdout" That will get you add

Re: [sqlite] damaged database recovery

2015-01-15 Thread Dave Dyer
> > >> it wasn't possible to drop the index in question > >what happened when you tried ? Were you using your own code or the SQLite >shell tool ? sqlite shell tool. Same complaint, "database corrupted". >My guess is that you actually have file-level corruption which just happened >to corru

[sqlite] damaged database recovery

2015-01-15 Thread Dave Dyer
> > >> it wasn't possible to drop the index in question > >what happened when you tried ? Were you using your own code or the SQLite >shell tool ? sqlite shell tool. Same complaint, "database corrupted". >My guess is that you actually have file-level corruption which just happened >to corru

Re: [sqlite] damaged database recovery

2015-01-15 Thread Simon Slavin
On 15 Jan 2015, at 8:24pm, Dave Dyer wrote: > 1) the generic error 11 "database corrupt" could have been more > specific. It would have been handy to know that the complaint was > about duplicate indexes, and which index, or even which table was > involved. > > 2) it wasn't possible to drop th

Re: [sqlite] damaged database recovery

2015-01-15 Thread Dave Dyer
I have a case of a damaged database, where the only damage appears to be that somehow the index uniqueness constraint is violated. As long as the operations don't touch the index, the db operates without complaint. I was eventually able to construct a copy with good indexes, but 1) the generic

[sqlite] damaged database recovery

2015-01-15 Thread Dave Dyer
I have a case of a damaged database, where the only damage appears to be that somehow the index uniqueness constraint is violated. As long as the operations don't touch the index, the db operates without complaint. I was eventually able to construct a copy with good indexes, but 1) the generic