bloated dictionaries using rdkinstall (OpenInsight 32-bit Specific)
At 11 FEB 2003 11:52:16AM Mike O'Neal wrote:
Hello all -
We've come across a situation where the *order* of edit patterns in a dictionary can cause that dictionary to bloat to ]65k upon deploying to a runtime system. The dictionary is fine on the dev system, is fine in the SYSUPGRADE table, but once it is rdkinstalled, poof - ]65k.
We've found we can isolate the individual edit pattern that is causing the bloat (not easy though…), move that pattern to a different position in relation to the other codes, at which the dictionary installs O.K.
The edit patterns are 1 or 2 letter alphabetic characters, with anywhere from 5 - 30 patterns in the dictionary. There is not one *single* edit pattern that is causing the problem across tables, it is different patterns in different tables. Several of the problem dictionaries end with the word TYPE (ie. fieldname_TYPE), but several do not. We have ca. 20 dictionaries with this problem.
For anyone still reading this far, here's an example of a group of edit patterns that cause bloat upon installation. If you move "CT" above "TP" though, no problem.
One last note, when using AREV to copy the dictionaries from SYSUPGRADE (as opposed to rdkinstall) no bloat, regardless of the edit pattern.
Environment is OI 4.03, Windows 2000.
Any ideas? Thanks much,
Mike O.
"BC"
"BP"
"CU"
"DV"
"EX"
"GR"
"PT"
"LR"
"RC"
"SG"
"TP"
"BD"
"CT"
"LT"
"PO"
"RG"
"RH"
"SC"
"SD"
"SP"
"TC"
"XX"
"BK"
"DN"
"FL"
"FR"
"FT"
"RT"
"ST"
At 13 FEB 2003 10:34AM Tim Marler wrote:
Mike,
Just a bit of a stab in the dark…
I see you're using Arev as well. Was this app converted from Arev to OI? If so, was the Arev version prior to 3.12? This might cause some problems with the dictionaries. I remember reading when I first started using OI that to use Arev tables completely safely they had to be v3.1x or above.
Tim
At 13 FEB 2003 10:39AM [url=http://www.sprezzatura.com]The Sprezzatura Group[/url] wrote:
Tim and I were just talking about this (which is why are responses are so close time-wise) and the other items we thought about were that maybe the LT in the input pattern is going through match as a 'less than' which is throwing off the compliation.
The other is from our "If You can't Solve it, Mask it" Department at Sprezz….change it to a user defined conversion.
World leaders in all things RevSoft
At 13 FEB 2003 02:42PM Mike O'Neal wrote:
Tim and Sprezz -
Thanks for the input, but we went directly from AREV 3.12
Mike
At 13 FEB 2003 02:45PM Mike O'Neal wrote:
Doesn't explain though why just *moving* the LT to another area of the edit pattern makes the problem go away.
Mike O.
At 13 FEB 2003 05:09PM [url=http://www.sprezzatura.com]The Sprezzatura Group[/url] wrote:
Only that LT is the primitive for Less Than…….
World Leaders in all Things RevSoft
