On Saturday 02 May 2009, Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Saturday 02 May 2009, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>>bayes_seen is rather irrelevant.
>
>To this problem, or generally?
>
>>bayes_toks is very binary-oriented, and uses lots of pack() calls.
>>
>>There is no SA-based "validity" check for the DB files/data.
On Saturday 02 May 2009, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>bayes_seen is rather irrelevant.
To this problem, or generally?
>bayes_toks is very binary-oriented, and uses lots of pack() calls.
>
>There is no SA-based "validity" check for the DB files/data. If you
>think the DB file itself is corrupt, you co
On Saturday 02 May 2009, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>bayes_seen is rather irrelevant.
>bayes_toks is very binary-oriented, and uses lots of pack() calls.
>
>There is no SA-based "validity" check for the DB files/data. If you
>think the DB file itself is corrupt, you could try the appropriate DBM
>tool
bayes_seen is rather irrelevant.
bayes_toks is very binary-oriented, and uses lots of pack() calls.
There is no SA-based "validity" check for the DB files/data. If you
think the DB file itself is corrupt, you could try the appropriate DBM
tools (db_verify, etc.) The dump/restore method really sh
Greetings;
1. The suggestions to rebuild the bayes db didn't make any difference.
2. The error complains about the packing format of the db, when as near as I
can tell, it isn't packed, its plain text, or at least the bayes_seen file is.
And its nearly 9 megabytes.
bayes_toks, OTOH, is inscrut
