Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux)

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2003


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 50771
interpreted = N
texte = >Bob Minor wrote: >>Actually I may have found the problem. There were no returns in the >>file I did have one in the append statement so it was just one long >>100mb line. > >The filesystem doesn't care if you have any linebreaks at all; I >still suspect choosing .db for the file extension of a non-database >is a bad idea. I disagree that sing .db as the suffix for a file that's not used as a database file is a bad idea. In fact, it has always been a very good idea for me ... :)I have always named my appendfile files with the .db suffix, and never once have I seen webdna open any of these files as .db files -- unless I have specifically referenced them in a search, append, replace or delete context.And I used to monitor this kind of thing, not only to make sure these files were never opened as db files unless I called them properly, but also to make sure they were closed properly after I was done accessing them as database files on occasion -- so there would be no problem with my continuing to use appendfile on them again after they were supposedly closed by webdna when I used a closedatabase or flushdatabases tag.We still have not heard from SMSI regarding the way webdna opens and appends data to files via appendfile, so we still don't know if this problem might be caused by something in the way the file is opened and appended to ... -- Sincerely, Kenneth Grome ------------------------------------------------------------- My programmers will write WebDNA code for you at $27 an hour! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (Bob Minor 2003)
  2. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (Scott Anderson 2003)
  3. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (Kenneth Grome 2003)
  4. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (Kenneth Grome 2003)
  5. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (John Peacock 2003)
  6. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (Alex McCombie 2003)
  7. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (Bob Minor 2003)
  8. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (John Peacock 2003)
  9. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (Bob Minor 2003)
  10. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (John Peacock 2003)
  11. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (Bob Minor 2003)
  12. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (Donovan 2003)
  13. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (Donovan 2003)
  14. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (Alex McCombie 2003)
  15. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (Bob Minor 2003)
  16. Re: Appendfile memory usage (redux) (John Peacock 2003)
  17. Appendfile memory usage (redux) (Bob Minor 2003)
>Bob Minor wrote: >>Actually I may have found the problem. There were no returns in the >>file I did have one in the append statement so it was just one long >>100mb line. > >The filesystem doesn't care if you have any linebreaks at all; I >still suspect choosing .db for the file extension of a non-database >is a bad idea. I disagree that sing .db as the suffix for a file that's not used as a database file is a bad idea. In fact, it has always been a very good idea for me ... :)I have always named my appendfile files with the .db suffix, and never once have I seen webdna open any of these files as .db files -- unless I have specifically referenced them in a search, append, replace or delete context.And I used to monitor this kind of thing, not only to make sure these files were never opened as db files unless I called them properly, but also to make sure they were closed properly after I was done accessing them as database files on occasion -- so there would be no problem with my continuing to use appendfile on them again after they were supposedly closed by webdna when I used a closedatabase or flushdatabases tag.We still have not heard from SMSI regarding the way webdna opens and appends data to files via appendfile, so we still don't know if this problem might be caused by something in the way the file is opened and appended to ... -- Sincerely, Kenneth Grome ------------------------------------------------------------- My programmers will write WebDNA code for you at $27 an hour! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Kenneth Grome

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

Cobalt and WebCatalog, do they work together? (2000) Moment of Thanks (1997) [convertchars] (2000) Date Formats (1997) Exclamation point (1997) Re[2]: Base64 encryption limitations? (1999) list items (1998) emailer error -108 (1997) [WebDNA] ONLY the FIRST continuous run of numeric chars? (2008) [OT] (2001) room needed to share at Moscone Marriott (1999) emailer cc to figured out (1997) ANN: Strategic Partnership with BuyStream Announced. (2000) more info on [setlineitems] (1997) required fields (1998) Table Loop Hoops (2000) math on date? (1997) WebCat2 several catalogs? (1997) Changes to the List (1997) Duplicate Cart Problem in Netscape (2000)