About array

forum_thread

OutOfMemoryError on search after update on DB created with DB Doctor

It looks like there may be an issue with the DB files created with DB Doctor in recovery mode. This is the scenario that results in the OutOfMemory exception problem (using Object DB 2.5.4_04): 1. We instruct Object DB to create a 1Gb DB file on initial start-up using: <database> <size initial="1024mb" resize="256mb" page="2kb" /> This happens as expected. #1 2014-03-11 01:36 It looks like there may be an issue with the DB files created with DB Doctor in recovery mode. This is the scenar ...

 
issue

Page #9 entry 0 (key 'bjjl') has 75 extra bytes / Unexpected last index ID: -119 (expected -116)

Please check the attached database file. When running the Doctor, I get   Global Value Errors ------------------- [1] Unexpected last index ID: -119 (expected -116) Page Content Errors ------------------- [1] Page #9 entry 0 has unexpected object format [2] Page #9 entry 0 (key 'bjjl') has 75 extra bytes   Both errors are not fixable. When creating a new db file with the Doctor, this file yields the same errors. Please advise.  Bug Version: 2.4.0 Priority: Normal Status: Fixed Replies: 6 Type:  Bug ...

 
api-jdo

javax.jdo.spi.JDOImplHelper

This class is a helper class for JDO implementations.(Class of JDO)

 
release

2.6.2

... in loading mapped (inverse) to-many relationship into an array field ([]) ( issue #195 ). Fixed a bug in loading mapped ... . Added support of using persistent array fields with parameterized type . Added error on using ...

 
release

2.6.1

... in loading mapped (inverse) to-many relationship into an array field ([]) ( issue #195 ). Fixed a bug in loading mapped ... . Added support of using persistent array fields with parameterized type . Added error on using ...

 
forum_thread

PersistenceException: Failed to locate field

Hi, have recently been running into this issue when changing the schema: com.objectdb.o._PersistenceException: Failed to locate field in this case, adding a primitive String field to an Entity. pretty sure that in the past schema evolution would not have triggered errors, is this case, a simple new field, shouldn't the policy be to add a null in that field, or other default for that primitive. #1 2017-10-05 03:14 Hi, have recently been running into this issue when changing the schema: com.objectdb.o._PersistenceExcep ...

 
release

2.4.4

... . Added support of using persistent array fields with parameterized type . Added error on using ...

 
release

2.6.0

... in loading mapped (inverse) to-many relationship into an array field ([]) ( issue #195 ). Fixed a bug in loading mapped ... . Added support of using persistent array fields with parameterized type . Added error on using ...

 
release

2.3.1

... . Added support of using persistent array fields with parameterized type . Added error on using ...

 
release

2.5.7

... in loading mapped (inverse) to-many relationship into an array field ([]) ( issue #195 ). Fixed a bug in loading mapped ... . Added support of using persistent array fields with parameterized type . Added error on using ...