jrgchip c...@datamology.com writes:
I have a Product table with a Num column that contains a record that is
only accessible by some SQL and not others. I have tested this by JDBC
access from my Java app as well was from IJ directly.
ij select Num, length(Num) as Len from app.Product where
Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
Blair Zajac bl...@orcaware.com writes:
I downloaded d2991-preview-1e.diff and applied it to r737572 of trunk.
I don't see the original problem now. Even going to 500 threads and
setting derby.locks.waitTimeout to -1 works.
Will or when will a patch for d2991 be
Kristian Waagan wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote:
Kristian Waagan wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote:
Hello Blair,
My only *guess* is that there might be a restructuring of a BTree
going on, which is not correctly reported - and you might be
experiencing a deadlock. To stop guessing and actually start
-Original Message-
From: jrgchip [mailto:c...@datamology.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:10 AM
To: derby-user@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: Record not found in some SQL - Bug?
I have reported the problem as
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4032.
The
de...@segel.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: jrgchip [mailto:c...@datamology.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:10 AM
To: derby-user@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: Record not found in some SQL - Bug?
[ snip ]
How did you load the data?
What character set(s) are you using?
Have you tried to run the Derby consistency checker? (See
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/DatabaseConsistencyCheck).
Maybe that could give some clue about what is wrong.
--
Øystein
jrgchip wrote:
I have reported the problem as
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4032.
The problem is
oysteing wrote:
Have you tried to run the Derby consistency checker?
Yes...it reports all 44 tables as OK per SYSCS_CHECK_TABLE.
Kristian Waagan-4 wrote:
Be aware that 10.3.1.4 and 10.3.2.1 had a corruption bug, mostly (or
only) seen on Windows.
Can you point me to information
jrgchip wrote:
oysteing wrote:
Have you tried to run the Derby consistency checker?
Yes...it reports all 44 tables as OK per SYSCS_CHECK_TABLE.
Kristian Waagan-4 wrote:
Be aware that 10.3.1.4 and 10.3.2.1 had a corruption bug, mostly (or
only) seen on Windows.
Can you point me to
jrgchip wrote:
oysteing wrote:
Have you tried to run the Derby consistency checker?
Yes...it reports all 44 tables as OK per SYSCS_CHECK_TABLE.
Kristian Waagan-4 wrote:
Be aware that 10.3.1.4 and 10.3.2.1 had a corruption bug, mostly (or
only) seen on Windows.
Can you
