I have a lot of data in 2 different databases and in many different tables I would like to move from one computer into a few others. The others has the same definition of the db:s. Note, not all the data should be transfered, only some that I define. Some tables fully, and some others just partly.
How would I move these data in the easiest way? To dump each table and load separately in many .d files - is not an easy way. Could you do something similar to the Incremental .df File that contains all that has to be changed?
Dumping (and loading) entire tables is easy. You can do it from the GUI or by command line. Look at for instance this KnowledgeBase entry about command line dump & load and this about creating scripts for dumping the entire database.
Parts of the data is another story. This is very individual and depends on your database and your application. It's hard for a generic tool to compare data and tell if a difference in data depends on changed data, added data or deleted data. Different databases has different kinds of layout, keys and indices.
There are however several built in commands that could help you:
For instance:
IMPORT and EXPORT for importing and exporting data to files, streams etc.
Basic import and export
OUTPUT TO c:\temp\foo.data.
FOR EACH foo NO-LOCK:
EXPORT foo.
END.
OUTPUT CLOSE.
INPUT FROM c:\temp\foo.data.
REPEAT:
CREATE foo.
IMPORT foo.
END.
INPUT CLOSE.
BUFFER-COPY and BUFFER-COMPARE for copying and comparing data between tables (and possibly even databases).
You could also use the built in commands for doing "dump" and then manually edit the created files.
Calling Progress Built in commands
You can call the back end that dumps data from Data Administration. That will require you to extract those .p-files from it's archives and calling them manually. This will also require you to change PROPATHS etc so it's not straightforward. You could also look into modifying the extracted files to your needs. Remember that this might break when upgrading Progress so store away your changes in separate files.
Look at this Progress KB entry:
Progress KB 15884
Best way for you depends on if this is a one time or reacurring task, size and layout of database etc.
I've got some old code on a project I'm taking over.
One of my first tasks is to reduce the final size of the app binary.
Since the contents include a lot of text files (around 10.000 of them), my first thought was to create a database containing them all.
I'm not really used to SQLite and Core Data, so I've got basically two questions:
1 - Is my assumption correct? Should my SQLite file have a smaller size than all of the text files together?
2 - Is there any way of automating the task of getting them all into my newly created database (maybe using some kind of GUI or script), one file per record inside a single table?
I'm still experimenting with CoreData, but I've done a lot of searching already and could not find anything relevant to bringing everything together inside the database file. Doing that manually has proven no easy task already!
Thanks.
An alternative to using SQLite might be to use a zipfile instead. This is easy to create, and will surely safe space (and definitely reduce the number of files). There are several implementations of using zipfiles on the iphone, e.g. ziparchive or TWZipArchive.
1 - It probably won't be any smaller, but you can compress the files before storing them in the database. Or without the database for that matter.
2 - Sure. It's shouldn't be too hard to write a script to do that.
If you're looking for a SQLite bulk insert command to write your script for 2), there isn't one AFAIK. Prepared insert statments in a loop inside a transaction is the best you can do, I imagine it would take only a few seconds (if that) to insert 10,000 records.
I'm having problems exporting a 3305 page report (95000 records) using CR 8 to RTF.
When exporting a TXT file, it works.
But...
When exporting a large RTF, the program hangs at about 42% of the export process. Later it frees up the system, appears to finish, and outputs a file. The file itself is not complete (many records missing), and the formatting is gone (everything displays vertically, one word on top of another).
My setup has Windows XP SP2; Intel Pentium CPU 2.8G; about 512 RAM.. on another machine with twice that amount it only got to 43%.
When exporting a large DOC, the Reports module hangs at about 63% of the export process. Later it frees up the system, and outputs a file. The file itself is in Word 2.0, and I cannot open it on my screen.
Excel 8 is also a no go
Upgrading CR is not an option for me at this point.
The customer wants this feature to work, and is not presently willing to filter the report and export in smaller chunks (the nature of their work requires them to have it as one single document with a single date stamp at the bottom of the page, and other reasons.).
It seems like it could be a memory issue.
I also wonder if there isn't any limits to the size of an RTF, WORD or EXCEL file. I think EXCEL is only good up to 65000+ records per worksheet.
Any ideas?
P.S. - I had a look at the other suggested topics similar to this, and did not find the answer was looking for.
I also sent an email to Crystal Reports, but I think they're now owned by another company, which I wonder is support version 8. I thought I read elsewhere they were not. Does anyone know who is still supporting version 8?
Excel (pre-2007), at least, does have a max record count, and I think it's 65386 rows (Excel 2007: 1,048,576 rows and 16,384 columns). There may be similar limitations with Word, but I would think that's unlikely, and that the limitations are a result of the exporting functionality from your version of Crystal...
Also, I'm pretty sure you're SOL with getting support from SAP (owns CR) for version 8. In my travels working with Crystal Reports (from a distance), I've seen many issues with exporting from CR that have been (recently) corrected with updates the the ExportModeler library;
Good luck with finding some help with CR8; even though you'd mentioned upgrading CR is not an option, I think it'd be your only recourse... :(
Years ago I had a problem where the temp file that the Crystal Report was generating for very large exports took up all the available space on the hard drive. Check to see how much space you have on you temp drive (usually C:). You can also watch the disk space as the export occurs to see if it is chewing up the space. It wil lmagically stall (e.g. 42% complete) when it gets down to almost zero. After the process fials, the temp file is deleted and you disk space goes back to normal.
I'm guessing this won't apply to 99.99% of anyone that sees this. I've been doing some Sawtooth survey programming at work and I've been needing to create a webpage that shows some aggregate data from the completed surveys. I was just wondering if anyone else has done this using the flat files that Sawtooth generates and how you went about doing it. I only know very basic Perl and the server I use does not have PHP so I'm somewhat at a loss for solutions. Anything you've got would be helpful.
Edit: The problem with offering example files is that it's more complicated. It's not a single file and it occasionally gets moved to a different file with a different format. The complexities added in there are why I ask this question.
Doesn't Sawtooth export into CSV format? There are many Perl parsers for CSV files. Just about every language has a CSV parser or two (or twelve), and MS Excel can open them directly, and they're still plaintext so you can look at them in any text editor.
I know our version of Sawtooth at work (which is admittedly very old) exports Sawtooth data into SPSS format, which can then be exported into various spreadsheet formats including CSV, if all else fails.
If you have a flat (fixed-width field) file, you can easily parse it in Perl using regular expressions or just taking substrings of each line one at a time, assuming you know the width of the fields. Your question is too general to give much better advice, sorry.
Matching the values up from a plaintext file with meta-data (variable names and labels, value labels etc.) is more complicated unless you already have the meta-data in some script-readable format. Making all of that stuff available on a web page is more complicated still. I've done it and it can be a bit of a lengthy project to roll your own. There are packages you can buy, like SDA, which will help you build a website where people can browse and download your survey data and view your codebooks.
Honestly though the easiest thing to do if you're posting statistical data on a website is get the data into SPSS or SAS or another statistics package format and post those files for download directly. Then you don't have to worry about it.
A product that I am working on collects several thousand readings a day and stores them as 64k binary files on a NTFS partition (Windows XP). After a year in production there is over 300000 files in a single directory and the number keeps growing. This has made accessing the parent/ancestor directories from windows explorer very time consuming.
I have tried turning off the indexing service but that made no difference. I have also contemplated moving the file content into a database/zip files/tarballs but it is beneficial for us to access the files individually; basically, the files are still needed for research purposes and the researchers are not willing to deal with anything else.
Is there a way to optimize NTFS or Windows so that it can work with all these small files?
NTFS actually will perform fine with many more than 10,000 files in a directory as long as you tell it to stop creating alternative file names compatible with 16 bit Windows platforms. By default NTFS automatically creates an '8 dot 3' file name for every file that is created. This becomes a problem when there are many files in a directory because Windows looks at the files in the directory to make sure the name they are creating isn't already in use. You can disable '8 dot 3' naming by setting the NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation registry value to 1. The value is found in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem registry path. It is safe to make this change as '8 dot 3' name files are only required by programs written for very old versions of Windows.
A reboot is required before this setting will take effect.
NTFS performance severely degrades after 10,000 files in a directory. What you do is create an additional level in the directory hierarchy, with each subdirectory having 10,000 files.
For what it's worth, this is the approach that the SVN folks took in version 1.5. They used 1,000 files as the default threshold.
The performance issue is being caused by the huge amount of files in a single directory: once you eliminate that, you should be fine. This isn't a NTFS-specific problem: in fact, it's commonly encountered with user home/mail files on large UNIX systems.
One obvious way to resolve this issue, is moving the files to folders with a name based on the file name. Assuming all your files have file names of similar length, e.g. ABCDEFGHI.db, ABCEFGHIJ.db, etc, create a directory structure like this:
ABC\
DEF\
ABCDEFGHI.db
EFG\
ABCEFGHIJ.db
Using this structure, you can quickly locate a file based on its name. If the file names have variable lengths, pick a maximum length, and prepend zeroes (or any other character) in order to determine the directory the file belongs in.
I have seen vast improvements in the past from splitting the files up into a nested hierarchy of directories by, e.g., first then second letter of filename; then each directory does not contain an excessive number of files. Manipulating the whole database is still slow, however.
I have run into this problem lots of times in the past. We tried storing by date, zipping files below the date so you don't have lots of small files, etc. All of them were bandaids to the real problem of storing the data as lots of small files on NTFS.
You can go to ZFS or some other file system that handles small files better, but still stop and ask if you NEED to store the small files.
In our case we eventually went to a system were all of the small files for a certain date were appended in a TAR type of fashion with simple delimiters to parse them. The disk files went from 1.2 million to under a few thousand. They actually loaded faster because NTFS can't handle the small files very well, and the drive was better able to cache a 1MB file anyway. In our case the access and parse time to find the right part of the file was minimal compared to the actual storage and maintenance of stored files.
You could try using something like Solid File System.
This gives you a virtual file system that applications can mount as if it were a physical disk. Your application sees lots of small files, but just one file sits on your hard drive.
http://www.eldos.com/solfsdrv/
If you can calculate names of files, you might be able to sort them into folders by date, so that each folder only have files for a particular date. You might also want to create month and year hierarchies.
Also, could you move files older than say, a year, to a different (but still accessible) location?
Finally, and again, this requires you to be able to calculate names, you'll find that directly accessing a file is much faster than trying to open it via explorer. For example, saying
notepad.exe "P:\ath\to\your\filen.ame"
from the command line should actually be pretty quick, assuming you know the path of the file you need without having to get a directory listing.
One common trick is to simply create a handful of subdirectories and divvy up the files.
For instance, Doxygen, an automated code documentation program which can produce tons of html pages, has an option for creating a two-level deep directory hierarchy. The files are then evenly distributed across the bottom directories.
Aside from placing the files in sub-directories..
Personally, I would develop an application that keeps the interface to that folder the same, ie all files are displayed as being individual files. Then in the application background actually takes these files and combine them into a larger files(and since the sizes are always 64k getting the data you need should be relatively easy) To get rid of the mess you have.
So you can still make it easy for them to access the files they want, but also lets you have more control how everything is structured.
Having hundreds of thousands of files in a single directory will indeed cripple NTFS, and there is not really much you can do about that. You should reconsider storing the data in a more practical format, like one big tarball or in a database.
If you really need a separate file for each reading, you should sort them into several sub directories instead of having all of them in the same directory. You can do this by creating a hierarchy of directories and put the files in different ones depending on the file name. This way you can still store and load your files knowing just the file name.
The method we use is to take the last few letters of the file name, reversing them, and creating one letter directories from that. Consider the following files for example:
1.xml
24.xml
12331.xml
2304252.xml
you can sort them into directories like so:
data/1.xml
data/24.xml
data/1/3/3/12331.xml
data/2/5/2/4/0/2304252.xml
This scheme will ensure that you will never have more than 100 files in each directory.
Consider pushing them to another server that uses a filesystem friendlier to massive quantities of small files (Solaris w/ZFS for example)?
If there are any meaningful, categorical, aspects of the data you could nest them in a directory tree. I believe the slowdown is due to the number of files in one directory, not the sheer number of files itself.
The most obvious, general grouping is by date, and gives you a three-tiered nesting structure (year, month, day) with a relatively safe bound on the number of files in each leaf directory (1-3k).
Even if you are able to improve the filesystem/file browser performance, it sounds like this is a problem you will run into in another 2 years, or 3 years... just looking at a list of 0.3-1mil files is going to incur a cost, so it may be better in the long-term to find ways to only look at smaller subsets of the files.
Using tools like 'find' (under cygwin, or mingw) can make the presence of the subdirectory tree a non-issue when browsing files.
Rename the folder each day with a time stamp.
If the application is saving the files into c:\Readings, then set up a scheduled task to rename Reading at midnight and create a new empty folder.
Then you will get one folder for each day, each containing several thousand files.
You can extend the method further to group by month. For example, C:\Reading become c:\Archive\September\22.
You have to be careful with your timing to ensure you are not trying to rename the folder while the product is saving to it.
To create a folder structure that will scale to a large unknown number of files, I like the following system:
Split the filename into fixed length pieces, and then create nested folders for each piece except the last.
The advantage of this system is that the depth of the folder structure only grows as deep as the length of the filename. So if your files are automatically generated in a numeric sequence, the structure is only is deep is it needs to be.
12.jpg -> 12.jpg
123.jpg -> 12\123.jpg
123456.jpg -> 12\34\123456.jpg
This approach does mean that folders contain files and sub-folders, but I think it's a reasonable trade off.
And here's a beautiful PowerShell one-liner to get you going!
$s = '123456'
-join (( $s -replace '(..)(?!$)', '$1\' -replace '[^\\]*$','' ), $s )