Sorry for my long silence too (also buzy...). We have done a few tests,
everything with FB 2.1.4.

The problem was reproducible: each restore (from the one and the same
backup) produced the same problem. (BTW, we are regularly updating this
DB/table weekly. After each backup/restore we are getting the same error.)

Then I did the following:

On machine A...
- dropped all other tables
- dropped the primary index
- backup

On machine B...
- restore
- validate => OK
- created 6 indices, each based on a single field from the previous
primary index
* validate => all indices with en error
- at this point I thought: "If I were Vlad, I would never believe this
story", so I was not in a mood to write anything

Then we thought: OK, let us see, what can we do with a DB, in order to
give it to Vlad :) So,

- drop all indices
- drop all fields apart form those 6
- drop even 3 of these 6 fields (so that we were left with a table with
only 6 fields, hoping very much not to loose the error - the reason was,
that we would have no problem with giving their content away)
- create index (am not sure if that was one on all 3 fields, or 3 separate
indices)
- validate => no error (damn it!)
- at this point I thought even more: "If I were Vlad, I would never
believe this story!", so I was again not in a mood to write anything.

Now to your questions:

>     So, all key fileds is VARCHAR with charset NONE, correct ?

Yes.

> Is it possible to have zero bytes in data values of any of the key fields ?

No, but no systematic test was made. However, I do think we have a routine
that eliminates zero bytes from the text material before reading it in.
So, I would say again: no, no zero bytes.

> What about leading or trailing zero's ?

Leading zeros (character 0, not zero byte) are extremely likely in some of
the fields (exactly those we deleted from the final tests).

>> I know that this is not recommended. I was already
>> thinking of defining it to be UTF-8 and than making backup and restore.

We have not done these tests yet, sorry.

>> Also, I was today thinking of defining 6 indices, each based on only one
>> field of the current primary key and see what happens.
>>
>> Are these tests worth trying?
>
>     Sure.

Have described these results above.

>>>     Is it reproducible ? I.e. if you restore same backup few times it
>>> have missed entries every time ?

Yes, that was the case, as described above.

So, this is the current state of affairs. I shall make tests with other
key fields (those that, when dropped, made the error wanish).

However, it will last a while, so please have patience. Thank you.

Regards,
Borut



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network 
management toolset available today.  Delivers lowest initial 
acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd
Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at 
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel

Reply via email to