The problem:

We have a client with a long-standing Arev 2.12 system running on a Novell network, and not using a dedicated indexing workstation. This system has many indexed files and everything was working fine and is still working fine except for 1 file, called deleted_orders. This file?s index periodically craps out, either with some Arev message about a problem with the !deleted_orders file, or more often, simply does not retrieve all the records it should when the index is used. Rebuilding all the indexes in the file works temporarily but the problem recurs about once every week or two.

Specifics about the file:

There are 4 indexed fields, all Btree indexes.

There is a 2 part key. The first part, a 6N field is indexed. The other 3 indexed fields are an internal date, a status field (2Z) and a busnum, also 6N.

There about 40,000 records in the file.

Steps we have already taken:

I have checked both the keys and indexed data fields for bad characters, @VM, @TM, etc.

I have removed all the indexes (which deletes the !file) and redefined and rebuilt them all.

I have removed the 4 indexed fields from the dictionary entirely and redefined the fields, then defined the indexes and rebuilt them.

We are considering an indexing machine. Any ideas, suggestions, etc would be greatly appreciated.

You should have a field with FMC=0 defined as the master field whose length is a few greater than the maximum id length. Have you checked this yet?

Bea-

How're you guys doing?

Try making a dictionary item for this file called @id, and have the length of this field be longer than both parts combined, and the delimiter.

For example, if part one if 6N, and part two can be up to 15X, then the width of the new @id field should be 6+15+1, or 22.

Also, do you do any big data dumps into the file? You could try batch.indexing.

If you still have problems, give me a call at (201) 722 9814.

Hope it helps-

Mike Ruane

WinWin Solutions Inc.

WWW.WinWinSol.com

mike@WinWinSol.com

Thanks guys:

Now that you mention it, I recall your suggestion from a few years back.

Now they're having a different problem: Server allocation error. I'm putting it up as a separate message.

Thanks guys:

Now that you mention it, I recall your suggestion from a few years back.

Now they're having a different problem: Server allocation error.

I'm putting it up as a separate message.

Thanks guys:

Now that you mention it, I recall your suggestion from a few years back.

But now they're having another problem: Server allocation error.

I'm putting it up as a separate message. Thanks again.

Bea G.

View this thread on the forum...