Re: [MarkLogic Dev General] How to trobleshoot Linux Installation

[Christopher Hamlin]

Some ideas to start:

Can you get to the port if you log on to the machine itself (test with
telnet locally)?

Can you check to see if/what is listening on 8001 (maybe 'lsof -i :8000')?

Take a look at the MarkLogic access log for 8001 to see if it is
getting your requests (default on Linux:
/var/opt/MarkLogic/Logs/8001_AccessLog.txt).


On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Joshi, Vipan  wrote:
> I am getting “Page not found” from my local browser when hit linuxserver
> port 8001. I can ping that server from my local desktop.
>
>
>
> I have installed Marklogic and it’s dependent rpm(s).
>
> I started the marklogic and sent the  ErrorLog.txt in first email.
>
> Please guide me how to troubleshoot this.
>
>
___
General mailing list
General@developer.marklogic.com
Manage your subscription at: 
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general

Re: [MarkLogic Dev General] How to trobleshoot Linux Installation

[Joshi, Vipan]

I am getting "Page not found" from my local browser when hit linuxserver port 
8001. I can ping that server from my local desktop.

I have installed Marklogic and it's dependent rpm(s).
I started the marklogic and sent the  ErrorLog.txt in first email.
Please guide me how to troubleshoot this.

From: general-boun...@developer.marklogic.com 
[mailto:general-boun...@developer.marklogic.com] On Behalf Of 
rajamani.marimu...@cognizant.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 8:57 AM
To: general@developer.marklogic.com
Subject: Re: [MarkLogic Dev General] How to trobleshoot Linux Installation

Hi Vipan,

What you are getting in the admin interface while accessing by browser .Pls 
send us clear info to solve your problem .

Thanks and regards
Raja >>>

From: 
general-boun...@developer.marklogic.com
 [mailto:general-boun...@developer.marklogic.com] On Behalf Of Joshi, Vipan
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 6:01 PM
To: MarkLogic Developer Discussion
Subject: [MarkLogic Dev General] How to trobleshoot Linux Installation

Hi All,
I installed MarkLogic on linux RHEL 6.x and I am not able to connect to admin 
console using browser from desktop.
Wanted to know how can I troubleshoot to resolve this problem - there is not 
much in ErrorLog.txt
Below are some of the lines from error log file.

2015-08-25 07:16:32.904 Notice: Stopping by SIGTERM from pid 17796
2015-08-25 07:16:59.124 Notice: Starting MarkLogic Server 8.0-3 x86_64 in 
/opt/MarkLogic with data in /var/opt/MarkLogic
2015-08-25 07:16:59.133 Info: Host apsrd5148.uhc.com running Linux 
2.6.32-504.8.1.el6.x86_64 (Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.6 
(Santiago))
2015-08-25 07:16:59.152 Info: SSL FIPS mode has been enabled
2015-08-25 07:16:59.923 Info: Native plugin cache manifest initialized
2015-08-25 07:16:59.926 Info: Forest Last-Login state changed from unmounted to 
mounted
2015-08-25 07:16:59.927 Info: Linux file system mount option 'barrier' is 
default; recommend faster 'nobarrier' if storage has non-volatile write cache
2015-08-25 07:16:59.927 Info: Mounted forest Last-Login locally on 
/var/opt/MarkLogic/Forests/Last-Login read write (dm-4 ext4 rw)
2015-08-25 07:16:59.929 Info: Forest Last-Login state changed from mounted to 
recovering
2015-08-25 07:16:59.932 Info: Forest Schemas state changed from unmounted to 
mounted
2015-08-25 07:16:59.932 Info: Forest Last-Login state changed from recovering 
to open
2015-08-25 07:16:59.932 Info: Mounted forest Schemas locally on 
/var/opt/MarkLogic/Forests/Schemas read write (dm-4 ext4 rw)
2015-08-25 07:16:59.934 Info: Forest Schemas state changed from mounted to 
recovering
2015-08-25 07:16:59.937 Info: Forest Extensions state changed from unmounted to 
mounted
2015-08-25 07:16:59.938 Info: Mounted forest Extensions locally on 
/var/opt/MarkLogic/Forests/Extensions read write (dm-4 ext4 rw)
2015-08-25 07:16:59.939 Info: Forest Schemas state changed from recovering to 
open
2015-08-25 07:16:59.939 Warning: Metering database is not configured - 
Temporarily disabling usage metering
2015-08-25 07:16:59.939 Warning: Linux Transparent Huge Pages are enabled, 
diminishing performance; recommend disabling
2015-08-25 07:16:59.940 Info: Forest Extensions state changed from mounted to 
recovering
2015-08-25 07:16:59.940 Info: Forest App-Services state changed from unmounted 
to mounted
2015-08-25 07:16:59.941 Info: Mounted forest App-Services locally on 
/var/opt/MarkLogic/Forests/App-Services read write (dm-4 ext4 rw)
2015-08-25 07:16:59.942 Info: Forest App-Services state changed from mounted to 
recovering
2015-08-25 07:16:59.943 Info: Forest Extensions state changed from recovering 
to open
2015-08-25 07:16:59.944 Info: Forest Triggers state changed from unmounted to 
mounted
2015-08-25 07:16:59.945 Info: Forest App-Services state changed from recovering 
to open
2015-08-25 07:16:59.945 Info: Mounted forest Triggers locally on 
/var/opt/MarkLogic/Forests/Triggers read write (dm-4 ext4 rw)
2015-08-25 07:16:59.946 Info: Forest Triggers state changed from mounted to 
recovering
2015-08-25 07:16:59.947 Info: Forest Fab state changed from unmounted to mounted
2015-08-25 07:16:59.947 Info: Mounted forest Fab locally on 
/var/opt/MarkLogic/Forests/Fab read write (dm-4 ext4 rw)
2015-08-25 07:16:59.948 Info: Forest Triggers state changed from recovering to 
open
2015-08-25 07:16:59.949 Info: Forest Fab state changed from mounted to 
recovering
2015-08-25 07:16:59.949 Info: Forest Meters state changed from unmounted to 
mounted
2015-08-25 07:16:59.949 Info: Mounted forest Meters locally on 
/var/opt/MarkLogic/Forests/Meters read write (dm-4 ext4 rw)
2015-08-25 07:16:59.951 Info: Forest Meters state changed from mounted to 
recovering
2015-08-25 07:16:59.951 Info: Forest Modules state changed from unmounted to 
mounted
2015-08-25 07:16:59.951 Info: Forest Fab state changed from recovering to open
2015-08-25 07:16:59.952 Info: Mounted forest Modules locally on 
/var/opt/MarkLogic/Fo

Re: [MarkLogic Dev General] Word Query - Excluded element Question

[Mary Holstege]

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 00:49:17 -0700, David Ennis   
wrote:

> I was hoping someone would have a better answer before I replied, but  
> here
> is my response.  Hopefully others will clarify  / build on it.
>
>
> I do not think this will make a difference.  The reason being that I
> understand that the way excluded and included elements actually works is
> related to traversing the tree while creating the word indexes and
> including or excluding parts of the tree in the indexing step.  Or even  
> if
> this statement inaccurate in some way, it is still related to the  
> analysis
> of the trees (even the tree structure in ML is a type of internal index
> like a term list, but element A pointing to parent B rather than a term  
> to
> a fragment.
>
> So, with the includes and excludes all related to the word queries and  
> the
> way the tree was indexed, I don't see how any range indexes will help  
> this.
>
> Perhaps someone will debunk this understanding and/or suggest some magic
> combination of other approaches. Perhaps there is another way of  
> creating a
> field with an xpath expression of the ones to include and using a tuned
> field-word-query on that or similiar.
>

You are correct: the excludes are processed at index time while we are  
walking the tree. At query time, we are just looking up word keys, and if  
the element was excluded there will be no word keys for words in that  
element in the index, so there will be no match. Adding a range index on  
that attribute will only create more work at indexing time and will do  
nothing at query time.  There is no intrinsic issue with there being a lot  
of documents with the exclusions -- the overhead of applying them at  
indexing is small, and in fact if there are large chunks of documents  
being excluded, could be a net performance enhancement (as well as saving  
space in the index) and at query time there is zero overhead -- again, a  
net savings because there are fewer matches to consider.

The danger with excludes on the word query field is that it disables  
certain optimizations that rely on word positions so you get false  
positives on element queries of various kinds. If you aren't using  
positions anyway it won't matter. If you want to make sure we can still do  
those optimizations (in the most recent releases of 7 and 8) you need to  
also define the excluded elements as phrase-arounds. However, you can't  
put an attribute/value condition on a phrase-around, so you can't do that  
for your case.
One possibility is to use a named field with the exclusions and do  
everything as field-word queries instead of word queries and remove the  
exclusions from the word field. That will cost you time and space at  
indexing time, however.

//Mary

___
General mailing list
General@developer.marklogic.com
Manage your subscription at: 
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general

Re: [MarkLogic Dev General] Word Query - Excluded element Question

[Yang, Yun]

Thanks David, really appreciate the detailed explanation. Will see if we can 
try some suggestions here.

Thanks again,

Yun

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:49 AM, David Ennis 
mailto:david.en...@hinttech.com>> wrote:

I was hoping someone would have a better answer before I replied, but here is 
my response.  Hopefully others will clarify  / build on it.


I do not think this will make a difference.  The reason being that I understand 
that the way excluded and included elements actually works is related to 
traversing the tree while creating the word indexes and including or excluding 
parts of the tree in the indexing step.  Or even if this statement inaccurate 
in some way, it is still related to the analysis of the trees (even the tree 
structure in ML is a type of internal index like a term list, but element A 
pointing to parent B rather than a term to a fragment.

So, with the includes and excludes all related to the word queries and the way 
the tree was indexed, I don't see how any range indexes will help this.

Perhaps someone will debunk this understanding and/or suggest some magic 
combination of other approaches. Perhaps there is another way of creating a 
field with an xpath expression of the ones to include and using a tuned 
field-word-query on that or similiar.







Kind Regards,
David Ennis


David Ennis
Content Engineer

[HintTech] 
Mastering the value of content
creative | technology | content

Delftechpark 37i
2628 XJ Delft
The Netherlands
T: +31 88 268 25 00
M: +31 63 091 72 80

[http://www.hinttech.com] 
[http://www.hinttech.com/signature/Twitter_HintTech.png] 
  
[http://www.hinttech.com/signature/Facebook_HintTech.png] 
  
[http://www.hinttech.com/signature/Linkedin_HintTech.png] 


On 26 August 2015 at 04:45, Yang, Yun 
mailto:yun.y...@wolterskluwer.com>> wrote:
Any advise? Appreciate the help.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 25, 2015, at 3:23 PM, Yang, Yun 
mailto:yun.y...@wolterskluwer.com>> wrote:

All,

We use Word Query in our application. For the word query setting, in the 
excluded elements section, we have excluded one attribute based on the value. 
For example, in element Content, if attribute Indexing = false, we excluded 
from the word search. There are only two values in the attribute, true and 
false.

Question:
Does it worth to create an attribute range index for two distinct values to 
speed up the search? We have millions of the docs meet the condition for 
exclusion.

XML Sample:



Thanks,

Yun Yang


___
General mailing list
General@developer.marklogic.com
Manage your subscription at:
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general


___
General mailing list
General@developer.marklogic.com
Manage your subscription at: 
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general

Re: [MarkLogic Dev General] Word Query - Excluded element Question

[David Ennis]

I was hoping someone would have a better answer before I replied, but here
is my response.  Hopefully others will clarify  / build on it.


I do not think this will make a difference.  The reason being that I
understand that the way excluded and included elements actually works is
related to traversing the tree while creating the word indexes and
including or excluding parts of the tree in the indexing step.  Or even if
this statement inaccurate in some way, it is still related to the analysis
of the trees (even the tree structure in ML is a type of internal index
like a term list, but element A pointing to parent B rather than a term to
a fragment.

So, with the includes and excludes all related to the word queries and the
way the tree was indexed, I don't see how any range indexes will help this.

Perhaps someone will debunk this understanding and/or suggest some magic
combination of other approaches. Perhaps there is another way of creating a
field with an xpath expression of the ones to include and using a tuned
field-word-query on that or similiar.







Kind Regards,
David Ennis


David Ennis
*Content Engineer*

[image: HintTech]  
Mastering the value of content
creative | technology | content

Delftechpark 37i
2628 XJ Delft
The Netherlands
T: +31 88 268 25 00
M: +31 63 091 72 80

[image: http://www.hinttech.com] 
  


On 26 August 2015 at 04:45, Yang, Yun  wrote:

> Any advise? Appreciate the help.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 25, 2015, at 3:23 PM, Yang, Yun  wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> We use Word Query in our application. For the word query setting, in the
> excluded elements section, we have excluded one attribute based on the
> value. For example, in element *Content, *if attribute* Indexing = false,
> *we excluded from the word search. There are only two values in the
> attribute, true and false.
>
>
>
> *Question:*
>
> Does it worth to create an attribute range index for two distinct values
> to speed up the search? We have millions of the docs meet the condition for
> exclusion.
>
>
>
> *XML Sample:*
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Yun Yang
>
>
>
>
> ___
> General mailing list
> General@developer.marklogic.com
> Manage your subscription at:
> http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
>
>
___
General mailing list
General@developer.marklogic.com
Manage your subscription at: 
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general