Hi David,
I'd expect MarkLogic and S3 to either ignore the case, or be able to handle it.
I can't really comment on the third slash, but it is pretty common on the file
protocol.
I recommend filing a bug if you haven't done so already. That will give our
engineers something to look at..
Hi Mike,
The automatic dir creation will cause MarkLogic to have to check for dir
existance for each doc, for every parent directory of that doc. That
certainly slows down your system. Running a separate dir creation process
before the ingest, with just a dir creation of each dir yet missing,
Met vriendelijke groet,
Johan van den Brink
Consultant
Analyze That - Analytics | Data Integration | Reporting | Process Mining
Kerkewijk 8
3901 EG Veenendaal
T: (06) 49 92 30 30
T: (0318) 52 55 87
M: jo...@analyzethat.nlmailto:jo...@analyzethat.nl
W:
HI Geert.
Thank You. I'll be on the AWS server this week and will have a look at
getting enough information to clarify if there is reason to open a ticket.
Likely there is reason to open such a ticket because the error-messages in
some cases refer to the bucket all in lowercase when the S3
___
General mailing list
General@developer.marklogic.com
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
___
General mailing list
General@developer.marklogic.com
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
From: himanshu kapsimemailto:hkaps...@gmail.com
Sent: 04/06/2014 13:52
To: MarkLogic Developer Discussionmailto:general@developer.marklogic.com
Subject: [MarkLogic Dev General] unsubscribe
___
General mailing list
I'm working on a project, one aspect of which requires minting unique IDs
and assuring that no two documents with the same ID wind up in the database. I
know how to accomplish this using locks (I'm pretty sure) but any such
implementation is awkward and prone to subtle edge case errors,
Rob,
I believe there is a race condition here. A document may not exit as-of the
timestamp when this request starts running, but some other request could create
one while it's running. This request would then over-write that document.
I'm actually more concerned about element values
Maybe you could consider using sem:uuid() in MarkLogic 7? You are much
better off with a statistically unique ID than actually taking the time
and massive concurrency reduction to check uniqueness.
John
On 04/06/2014 18:01, Ron Hitchens wrote:
I'm working on a project, one aspect of
On 04/06/2014 19:31, Ron Hitchens wrote:
In my case, the naming space is actually quite small because I want the
IDs to be meaningful but unique. For example images:cats:fluffy:XX.png,
where XX can increment or be set randomly until the ID is unique.
Make XX a random number. Or two or
I thought 2 simultaneous transactions would both get read locks on the uri,
then one would get a write lock and the other would fail and retry. Maybe I'm
missing something though.
But anyway, I agree unique indexes would be a handy feature. e.g. our docs have
a DOI element which *should* be
The simplest is to have the document URI correspond to the element
value, and if you can use a random value it's good for concurrency.
If you can't do that, but you want to ensure only one document can have
a particular value for an element, I think it's pretty easy using
Hi guys,
How can I unsubscribe from this mailing list?
Met vriendelijke groet,
Johan van den Brink
Consultant
Analyze That - Analytics | Data Integration | Reporting | Process Mining
Kerkewijk 8
3901 EG Veenendaal
T: (06) 49 92 30 30
T: (0318) 52 55 87
M: jo...@analyzethat.nl
W:
HI.
I believe you can do that here:
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
Kind Regards,
David Ennis
On 4 June 2014 23:09, Analyze That | Johan van den Brink
jo...@analyzethat.nl wrote:
Hi guys,
How can I unsubscribe from this mailing list?
Met vriendelijke groet,
Thanks David.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Johan van den Brink
Consultant
Analyze That - Analytics | Data Integration | Reporting | Process Mining
Kerkewijk 8
3901 EG Veenendaal
T: (06) 49 92 30 30
T: (0318) 52 55 87
M: jo...@analyzethat.nlmailto:jo...@analyzethat.nl
W:
Wayne,
Thanks for this. It's a useful code pattern for this sort of thing and I
will probably use it for the specific requirement I have at the moment (I was
planning to do something similar anyway).
But this code, or any user-level code, does not fully implement the
uniqueness
Fair points, Ron. We have RFE 2322 filed back in Feb 2012 to track this.
I'll add a note indicating your interest as well.
Wayne.
On 06/04/2014 03:00 PM, Ron Hitchens wrote:
Wayne,
Thanks for this. It's a useful code pattern for this sort of thing
and I will probably use it for the
Thanks Wayne.
---
Ron Hitchens {r...@overstory.co.uk} +44 7879 358212
On Jun 4, 2014, at 11:12 PM, Wayne Feick wayne.fe...@marklogic.com wrote:
Fair points, Ron. We have RFE 2322 filed back in Feb 2012 to track this. I'll
add a note indicating your interest as well.
Wayne.
On
try for yourself (7.0-2.3 on Mac):
let $u :=
http://www.larepublica.co/ocde-recomienda-fortalecer-el-sistema-de-planeaci%C3%B3n_124391
let $c := xdmp:http-get($u,
options xmlns=xdmp:http xmlns:d=xdmp:document-get
verify-certfalse/verify-cert
d:encodingUTF-8/d:encoding
d:repairfull/d:repair
Confirmed on my version of Linux as well.
A small note:
With pstack installed, there is really not much more ot go on:
crawl: Input/output error
Error tracing through process 24904
24904: /opt/MarkLogic/bin/MarkLogic
So, pstack itself can't seem to trace through the MarkLogic process
Yep, tidy is not very tidy. It's been a good source of crashes for as long as
I've been aware of it.
Anyone running MarkLogic on OSX might like to know how to simulate pstack on
OSX with a simple script. This requires gdb, of course. The output can be very
useful for reporting bugs, and
22 matches
Mail list logo
