judge@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Peter Judge) (01/26/91)
How come when I try to update the index file for a target in Digital Librarian (under v2.0) it doesn't do the job? The only way I've found to successfully have an updated index file is to destroy it and then re-create it. Am I doing something wrong? _Peter ================== Peter W. Judge judge@credit.erin.utoronto.ca -- =============================================== Peter W. Judge judge@credit.erin.utoronto.ca ===============================================
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (01/28/91)
In article <1991Jan25.165550.24316@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> judge@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Peter Judge) writes: >How come when I try to update the index file for a target in >Digital Librarian (under v2.0) it doesn't do the job? > >The only way I've found to successfully have an updated >index file is to destroy it and then re-create it. > >Am I doing something wrong? You are not doing anything wrong. The truth is that under 2.0 the index files have a new, improved structure (they use now b-trees instead of hash tables). Thus of course the new routines can't update an old structure. You therefore have to delete the index and create a new one. Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet
windemut@lisboa.tmc.edu (Andreas Windemuth) (01/28/91)
In article <62697@brunix.UUCP> rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) writes: > >You are not doing anything wrong. The truth is that under 2.0 the >index files have a new, improved structure (they use now b-trees >instead of hash tables). Thus of course the new routines can't update >an old structure. You therefore have to delete the index and create a >new one. > >Ronald > I dont' think it is necessary to delete the old index. In my experience the 1.0 and 2.0 indices can peacefully coexist in the same .index directory. Of course, updating one doesn't update the other, so if you have mixed access from both 1.0 and 2.0 systems, you have to build or update the index twice, once for each system. Of course, it is generally a bad idea to have a mixed network, because many things won't work ... Andreas
cmaguire@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Cary Maguire) (01/29/91)
Greetings! When I try to index directories under 1.0, several files are skipped by the indexer, and only part of the directory contents are thereby searched by Digital Librarian. The files being indexed are ASCII files without line breaks, and are located between 0-3 directories below the target directory. Does anyone have any information which could be of help here? Many Thanks! Camm ====================================================================== Internet: cmaguire@phoenix.princeton.edu "O Son of Man! Veiled in my immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of Mine essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty." Baha'u'llah