From: Hugh C. <hca...@em...> - 2007-08-08 18:09:09
|
I sent the file to you both a little while ago with all of the text =20 nodes stripped out. I tested with it and it has the same issue as =20 the original. H On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Pierrick Brihaye wrote: > Hi, > > Wolfgang Meier a =E9crit : > >> Is the bug reproducible with a limited data set? If not, please send >> me whatever is needed to reconstruct the error. I would certainly =20 >> like >> to fix this bug. Right now I'm still busy with other issues, so it's >> not a problem if it takes a few days. > > I'd volunteer as well (and perhaps Leif-J=F6ran ?) but this is what I =20= > can say on this bug so far : > > The query is : > > for $div in //div1[@id=3D'csr06-0052'] > return $div > > And the exception stack trace is : > > java.io.IOException: Found wrong prefix len: 4. Previous: 1.3.4.51 > at org.exist.numbering.DLNBase.<init>(DLNBase.java:154) > at org.exist.numbering.DLN.<init>(DLN.java:122) > at org.exist.numbering.DLNFactory.createFromStream > (DLNFactory.java:55) > at > org.exist.storage.NativeElementIndex.findDescendantsByTagName > (NativeElementIndex.java:726) > at org.exist.xquery.LocationStep.getAttributes > (LocationStep.java:505) > > We thus try to retrieve a node whose ID is invalid after having =20 > processed the node 1.3.4.51 (which can be identified using the =20 > util:node-by-id() function) at some point in the =20 > org.exist.storage.NativeElementIndex.findDescendantsByTagName =20 > method, because the stream containing the node ID is invalid. > > for $div in //*[@id=3D'csr06-0052'] > return $div > > returns "correctly" (for $div in //*[@id=3D'csr06-0052']/self::div1 =20= > would probably be more appropriate though, and //*=20 > [@id=3D'csr06-0052']/self::div1 would possibly even be better ;-)... =20= > because it doesn't use the findDescendantsByTagName() method. > > Being able to reproduce this bug would really help ; there is =20 > definitely something going wrong here. Since this kind of query is =20 > widely used and since we have very few bug reports in the =20 > structural index area, I'd suspect... a prior corruption of the =20 > DB :-( or a bad position of the stream (less likely, but probably =20 > easier to fix). > > Cheers, > > p.b. > |