Il Tuesday 06 November 2007 22:37:12 Scott Marlowe ha scritto:
> On 11/6/07, Reg Me Please <regmeplease@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Il Tuesday 06 November 2007 22:13:15 hai scritto:
> > > On 11/6/07, Reg Me Please <regmeplease@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Il Tuesday 06 November 2007 19:43:38 Scott Marlowe ha scritto:
> > > > > On 11/6/07, Reg Me Please <regmeplease@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > That seems not to be the case.
> > > > > > The last line has a \. by its own and the last but one is
> > > > > > well formed.
> > > > >
> > > > > (Please don't top post...)
> > > > >
> > > > > Got a self contained test case you can post?
> > > >
> > > > Back to the original topic ...
> > > >
> > > > I'm trying to understand what and where.
> > > > The point is that I have this 29M+ lines script telling me there's a
> > > > problem somewhere.
> > > >
> > > > A self contained test, at the moment, would be that long!
> > > >
> > > > I'm considering a "branch and bound" approach ... but it'd be quite
> > > > long and tedious as the program generating the script has not been
> > > > written to do such things.
> > >
> > > Split it in half, with the appropriate sql on each end so the data
> > > still works, and see which half causes a problem. Keep splitting the
> > > one that causes a problem in half until you have a small one with the
> > > problem still.
> > >
> > > I'm guessing the problem will become obvious then.
> >
> > That's the "branch and bound". Editing 29M+ lines file takes some time.
> > But this is the way I'm going to go right now.
>
> Oh, we called it half-splitting in the military.
>
> Using something like head / tail in unix to do it. Should be fairly
> fast, especially if you keep cutting it in half after the first test.
> I can't imagine editing something that large even in vi being very
> fast.
My laptop has a fairly slow disk and even with Linux and vi it takes time.
Well, a better diagnostic messages would be better in any case.
--
Reg me Please
