Ok good to know.
On 04/07/2019 14:12, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>> upgrade from Jena 3.5 to 3.12
There have been problems in the past - long fixed.
The database gets silently broken when running the old version and the
fault remains in the database. Upgrade does not fix it.
Andy
On
Hi Shalki,
Wow.
That's overflowing the in-memory hash tables for the results.
Because it's "CONSTRUCT", it is building a model of results (removes
duplicates) in-memory.
I think it will have problems writing in Turtle as well because it will
be the "pretty" form which is not for large
>>> upgrade from Jena 3.5 to 3.12
There have been problems in the past - long fixed.
The database gets silently broken when running the old version and the
fault remains in the database. Upgrade does not fix it.
Andy
On 04/07/2019 11:35, Mikael Pesonen wrote:
Thanks. What does the
Thanks. What does the first one mean? We are using Fuseki
:3030/ds endpoint for POSTing data and queries.
On 04/07/2019 13:26, Rob Vesse wrote:
There are several possible culprits:
- Past non-transactional use of the database
- Multiple JVMs using the database at the same time
- Actual
There are several possible culprits:
- Past non-transactional use of the database
- Multiple JVMs using the database at the same time
- Actual disk corruption (i.e. failing disk, bad sectors etc)
Rob
On 04/07/2019, 11:04, "Mikael Pesonen" wrote:
Ok. Is it possible to guess what
Ok. Is it possible to guess what could cause this?
On 04/07/2019 12:18, Rob Vesse wrote:
Impossibly Large Object means the database has been corrupted (more
specifically the Node Table). This is non-recoverable although it may not
affect the entire database i.e. any query that tries to
Impossibly Large Object means the database has been corrupted (more
specifically the Node Table). This is non-recoverable although it may not
affect the entire database i.e. any query that tries to access the affected
portion of the node table will fail but other queries may continue to
Any idea how to fix this? upgrade from Jena 3.5 to 3.12 didn't help.
On 02/07/2019 15:01, Mikael Pesonen wrote:
We have had the service running for few months without issues but now
got this. So there is exception and also weird #011 happening in log...
This same error happens now every
What do you mean by a re-index? i.e. what were the sequence of operations that
preceded this error
Rob
On 03/07/2019, 20:40, "Matthew Holt" wrote:
Hi all,
Upon trying to access a TDB instance that was just re-indexed, we are
getting the following error:
