Re: Dangling keys/objects after a batch of sequential inserts (for going on 3 days)

2013-07-25 Thread Siraaj Khandkar
On 07/22/2013 07:52 PM, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: On 07/22/2013 10:29 AM, Andrew Thompson wrote: You should be doing a GET before the PUT with the deletedvclock option. Here is an example I used to originally test (and fix) this bug: https://gist.github.com/Vagabond/965376#file-delete_bug-erl-L48

Re: Dangling keys/objects after a batch of sequential inserts (for going on 3 days)

2013-07-22 Thread Siraaj Khandkar
On 07/22/2013 10:29 AM, Andrew Thompson wrote: You should be doing a GET before the PUT with the deletedvclock option. Here is an example I used to originally test (and fix) this bug: https://gist.github.com/Vagabond/965376#file-delete_bug-erl-L48 Sadly, because of backwards compatability issu

Re: Dangling keys/objects after a batch of sequential inserts (for going on 3 days)

2013-07-22 Thread Andrew Thompson
You should be doing a GET before the PUT with the deletedvclock option. Here is an example I used to originally test (and fix) this bug: https://gist.github.com/Vagabond/965376#file-delete_bug-erl-L48 Sadly, because of backwards compatability issues, it was not possible to default deletedvclock

Re: Dangling keys/objects after a batch of sequential inserts (for going on 3 days)

2013-07-21 Thread Siraaj Khandkar
On 07/21/2013 08:10 PM, Russell Brown wrote: On 21 Jul 2013, at 19:15, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: On 07/21/2013 04:54 PM, Russell Brown wrote: On 21 Jul 2013, at 14:20, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: On 07/21/2013 07:24 AM, Russell Brown wrote:> Hi, On 21 Jul 2013, at 02:09, Siraaj Khandkar wrote

Re: Dangling keys/objects after a batch of sequential inserts (for going on 3 days)

2013-07-21 Thread Russell Brown
On 21 Jul 2013, at 19:15, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: > On 07/21/2013 04:54 PM, Russell Brown wrote: >> >> On 21 Jul 2013, at 14:20, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: >> >>> On 07/21/2013 07:24 AM, Russell Brown wrote:> Hi, On 21 Jul 2013, at 02:09, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: > I (sequentia

Re: Dangling keys/objects after a batch of sequential inserts (for going on 3 days)

2013-07-21 Thread Siraaj Khandkar
On 07/21/2013 04:54 PM, Russell Brown wrote: On 21 Jul 2013, at 14:20, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: On 07/21/2013 07:24 AM, Russell Brown wrote:> Hi, On 21 Jul 2013, at 02:09, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: I (sequentially) made 146204 inserts of unique objects to a single bucket. Several secondary i

Re: Dangling keys/objects after a batch of sequential inserts (for going on 3 days)

2013-07-21 Thread Russell Brown
On 21 Jul 2013, at 14:20, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: > On 07/21/2013 07:24 AM, Russell Brown wrote:> Hi, > > > > On 21 Jul 2013, at 02:09, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: > > > >> I (sequentially) made 146204 inserts of unique objects to a single > >> bucket. Several secondary indices (most with unique val

Re: Dangling keys/objects after a batch of sequential inserts (for going on 3 days)

2013-07-21 Thread Alexander Sicular
No idea what the problem is but it's been mentioned a few times here that when running these sorts of tests you should always change the bucket name to keep things fresh. -Alexander @siculars http://siculars.posthaven.com Sent from my iRotaryPhone On Jul 21, 2013, at 14:56, Siraaj Khandkar

Re: Dangling keys/objects after a batch of sequential inserts (for going on 3 days)

2013-07-21 Thread Siraaj Khandkar
On 07/21/2013 02:42 PM, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: On 07/21/2013 02:20 PM, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: On 07/21/2013 07:24 AM, Russell Brown wrote:> Hi, > > On 21 Jul 2013, at 02:09, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: This is how I am testing it: Compare = fun(PID, Bucket) -> B = Bucket,

Re: Dangling keys/objects after a batch of sequential inserts (for going on 3 days)

2013-07-21 Thread Siraaj Khandkar
On 07/21/2013 02:20 PM, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: On 07/21/2013 07:24 AM, Russell Brown wrote:> Hi, > > On 21 Jul 2013, at 02:09, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: > > Can you provide an example of the 2i queries you're running? This is how I am testing it: Compare = fun(PID, Bucket) ->

Re: Dangling keys/objects after a batch of sequential inserts (for going on 3 days)

2013-07-21 Thread Siraaj Khandkar
On 07/21/2013 07:24 AM, Russell Brown wrote:> Hi, > > On 21 Jul 2013, at 02:09, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: > >> I (sequentially) made 146204 inserts of unique objects to a single >> bucket. Several secondary indices (most with unique values) were set >> for each object, one of which was "bucket" = B

Re: Dangling keys/objects after a batch of sequential inserts (for going on 3 days)

2013-07-21 Thread Russell Brown
Hi, On 21 Jul 2013, at 02:09, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: > I (sequentially) made 146204 inserts of unique objects to a single bucket. > Several secondary indices (most with unique values) were set for each object, > one of which was "bucket" = BucketName (to use 2i for listing all keys). There is