Hi, By "size" I thought you meant # cache hits which would indicate size resident in memory. Here are the file sizes on disk. I plan to rebuild the indices today.
Thanks Simon drwxrwxr-x 6 tomcat tomcat 4096 Sep 27 03:29 . drwxrwxr-x 4 tomcat tomcat 4096 Sep 27 03:29 .. -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 4155552288 Sep 26 23:58 entities -rw-r--r-- 1 tomcat tomcat 104857600 Sep 26 23:58 entities.datatypes -rw-r--r-- 1 tomcat tomcat 248 Sep 26 23:58 entities.datatypes.strings -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 6327636996 Sep 26 21:59 entities-doc -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 629145600 Sep 26 23:58 entities.hash -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 18000004 Sep 26 23:58 entities.index drwxrwxr-x 2 tomcat tomcat 4096 Aug 8 16:51 fts drwxrwxr-x 2 tomcat tomcat 4096 Sep 26 23:58 literals-index -rw-r--r-- 1 tomcat tomcat 0 Sep 27 03:29 lock drwxrwxr-x 3 tomcat tomcat 4096 Aug 30 16:38 lucene -rw-r--r-- 1 tomcat tomcat 2632 Sep 27 03:29 owlim.properties -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 2027903744 Sep 27 03:29 pcos -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 5632064 Sep 27 03:29 pcos.index -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 1747215488 Sep 27 03:29 pcso -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 5632064 Sep 27 03:29 pcso.index -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 4755011072 Sep 27 03:29 pos -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 22528064 Sep 27 03:29 pos.index -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 576608 Sep 27 03:29 predicates -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 76064 Sep 27 03:29 predicates.index -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 2436434944 Sep 27 03:29 predLists -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 14336064 Sep 27 03:29 predLists.index -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 3929154656 Sep 27 03:29 pso -rwxrwxr-x 1 tomcat tomcat 11264064 Sep 27 03:29 pso.index drwxr-xr-x 3 tomcat tomcat 4096 Sep 14 14:51 repositories -bash-3.2$ pwd /data/.aduna/openrdf-sesame/repositories/K4/storage -bash-3.2$ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality Notice: This message is private and may contain confidential and proprietary information. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system and note that you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of the contents of this message is not permitted and may be unlawful. -----Original Message----- From: Barry Bishop [mailto:barry.bis...@ontotext.com] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 1:52 AM To: Rakov, Simon Cc: damyan; rve...@yarcdata.com; Pavel Mička; owlim-discussion@ontotext.com Subject: Re: [Owlim-discussion] ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS Hi Simon, I think you have reported cache hits for these indices (obtained via JMX) not the actual file size on disk. Anyhow, it's not clear to me how the predicate statistics got out of date in the first place. I'll make sure that handling this is improved for the next release. barry On 25/09/12 17:59, Rakov, Simon wrote: > Hi, > > I do have context indices enabled. Sizes: > > Pcos hits: 53663768 > Pcso hits: 20127229 > Pos hits: 482282752 > Pso hits: 32098277 > PL hits: 50179 > > It looks like pos is much larger than pcos or pso. PL (Predicate Lists) is > tiny. > > How do I rebuild the indexes? Please send me a list of steps. > > Thanks > Simon > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Confidentiality Notice: This message is private and may contain confidential > and proprietary information. If you have received this message in error, > please notify us and remove it from your system and note that you must not > copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. Any unauthorized use > or disclosure of the contents of this message is not permitted and may be > unlawful. > > -----Original Message----- > From: damyan [mailto:dam...@sirma.bg] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 11:10 AM > To: Rakov, Simon > Cc: Barry Bishop; rve...@yarcdata.com; Pavel Mička; > owlim-discussion@ontotext.com > Subject: Re: [Owlim-discussion] ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS > > Hi Simon, > > this is a message received when we detected a mismatch during estimation > of the query complexity for a particular statement pattern. And more > specifically when the collection size per that statement pattern is > calculated to be 0 but we found at least one statement satisfying the > pattern. > As a possible cause - there could be several but most likely one of the > indices is in inconsistent state (or have partial data). > > Could you check if you are using context indices and the size of > these(pcso for instance) is close by (at same order) as for pso/pos ... > > It could be easily caused when repository is initialized with context > indices enabled - then initialized without them but some data is added > and then these are again re-enabled. In such scenario, the third time > you initialize the repository it will find and use the old context > indices but they will not have the data from the previous updates, when > they were switched off since these were not maintained when switched off. > > one way to recover is to rebuild them. > > HTH > Damyan Ognyanov > Ontotext AD. > > On 9/25/2012 5:26 PM, Rakov, Simon wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am seeing a lot of these in catalina.out: >> >> ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS: 3546128 15939569 0, size = [D@4426e447 >> ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS: 3546176 15939569 0, size = [D@55551445 >> ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS: 3546307 15939569 0, size = [D@44a5e9c7 >> ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS: 3546399 15939569 0, size = [D@68972b06 >> ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS: 3546463 15939569 0, size = [D@1c89cc8f >> ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS: 3546546 15939569 0, size = [D@1ad4ceec >> ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS: 3546561 15939569 0, size = [D@95cf5b7 >> ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS: 3546592 15939569 0, size = [D@3607c62e >> ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS: 3546607 15939569 0, size = [D@386411b8 >> ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS: 3546663 15939569 0, size = [D@31c763f4 >> ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS: 3546677 15939569 0, size = [D@197341b4 >> ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS: 3546773 15939569 0, size = [D@5dde9d79 >> ERROR IN PREDICATE STATISTICS: 3546947 15939569 0, size = [D@4234a314 >> >> What do these mean? More importantly, how do I fix them? >> >> I'm running OWLIM 5.2.5512-20120921122819, JRE_HOME jdk1.6.0_32, Tomcat >> 6.0.35, CentOS with kernel Linux 2.6.18-194.el5 #1 SMP Fri Apr 2 14:58:14 >> EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux. >> >> Thanks for your help >> Simon Rakov >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Confidentiality Notice: This message is private and may contain confidential >> and proprietary information. If you have received this message in error, >> please notify us and remove it from your system and note that you must not >> copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. Any unauthorized use >> or disclosure of the contents of this message is not permitted and may be >> unlawful. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owlim-discussion-boun...@ontotext.com >> [mailto:owlim-discussion-boun...@ontotext.com] On Behalf Of Barry Bishop >> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 6:23 PM >> To: rve...@yarcdata.com; Pavel Mička >> Cc: owlim-discussion@ontotext.com >> Subject: Re: [Owlim-discussion] OWLIM ignores binding >> >> Hi Pavel, Rob, >> >> So it seems this is correct behaviour after all. >> >> Perhaps I was too quick to assume something was wrong. I think for >> anyone used to SQL then it just seems wrong, but is in fact correct. >> >> Thanks for spotting this, Rob. >> >> And thanks for raising awareness, Pavel. >> >> All the best, >> barry >> >> On 24/09/12 18:34, Rob Vesse wrote: >>> I believe this is in fact the correct behavior and in line with the >>> specification, see >>> http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/17410/semantics-of-sparql-aggregat >>> es for a recent discussion on this with an explanation from Andy Seaborne >>> of the working group as to why this is correct behavior >>> >>> The specific example there was a query with MAX but the same argument >>> applies here (in fact his argument does include treatment of COUNT) >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/24/12 1:46 AM, "Barry Bishop" <barry.bis...@ontotext.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Pavel, >>>> >>>> Yes, the issue does seem to be in Sesame. I have raised this issue: >>>> >>>> http://www.openrdf.org/issues/browse/SES-1108 >>>> >>>> I expect it will be taken care of fairly soon. >>>> >>>> Thanks for letting us know. >>>> >>>> barry >>>> >>>> Barry Bishop >>>> OWLIM Product Manager >>>> Ontotext AD >>>> Tel: +43 650 2000 237 >>>> email: barry.bis...@ontotext.com >>>> skype: bazbishop >>>> www.ontotext.com >>>> >>>> On 24/09/12 10:17, Pavel Mička wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I have found the issue, which is probably in sesame. When I execute >>>>> the query, but the knowledge base does not contain any axiom, it >>>>> returns only the value from the aggregation (0) as a result. Which is >>>>> quite unexpected, as it (in my humble opinion) should return no result >>>>> (empty result set). When the query is executed and data are present, >>>>> than it works as expected. >>>>> >>>>> Pavel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dne 24.9.2012 8:22, Barry Bishop napsal(a): >>>>>> Hello Pavel, >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you provide some more details, please? >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you mean that you see the expected variable names when calling >>>>>> TupleQueryResult.getBindingNames(), but that calls to >>>>>> TupleQueryResult.next().getBindingNames() do not have the expected >>>>>> variable names? Is this true for every BindingSet? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> barry >>>>>> >>>>>> Barry Bishop >>>>>> OWLIM Product Manager >>>>>> Ontotext AD >>>>>> Tel: +43 650 2000 237 >>>>>> email: barry.bis...@ontotext.com >>>>>> skype: bazbishop >>>>>> www.ontotext.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/09/12 10:47, Pavel Mička wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am using OWLIM-Lite edition (5.2.5331, Sesame 2.6.8) and I am >>>>>>> querying the system using the following SPARQL query: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PREFIX owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> >>>>>>> PREFIX rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> >>>>>>> PREFIX rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> >>>>>>> PREFIX odra: >>>>>>> <http://kbss.felk.cvut.cz/ontologies/2012/OdraOntology.owl/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> SELECT ?type (COUNT(DISTINCT ?instance) AS ?count) WHERE { >>>>>>> ?instance odra:hasType ?type . >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> GROUP BY ?type >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In BindingSet I expect 2 bindings (type, count), however the result >>>>>>> contains only count. But the TupleQueryResult contains (correctly) >>>>>>> both of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am I missing something or is this a bug? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pavel Mička >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Owlim-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> Owlim-discussion@ontotext.com >>>>>>> http://ontomail.semdata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Owlim-discussion mailing list >>>> Owlim-discussion@ontotext.com >>>> http://ontomail.semdata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion >> _______________________________________________ >> Owlim-discussion mailing list >> Owlim-discussion@ontotext.com >> http://ontomail.semdata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion >> _______________________________________________ >> Owlim-discussion mailing list >> Owlim-discussion@ontotext.com >> http://ontomail.semdata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion _______________________________________________ Owlim-discussion mailing list Owlim-discussion@ontotext.com http://ontomail.semdata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion
