- Log in to post comments
User bio
Senior Software Engineer | 10+ Years Specialized in InterSystems Technology and Product Stack
Dedicated to building high-performance, scalable solutions within the InterSystems ecosystem. Over a decade of experience architecting complex integrations and data-driven applications. Passionate about optimizing system performance and mentoring the next generation of InterSystems developers.
Show all
Member since Apr 27, 2017
Posts:
Replies:
Thanks @Vishal Pallerla
- Log in to post comments
Thank you @Fellipe Anselmo Gemio
- Log in to post comments
Open Exchange applications:
Certifications & Credly badges:
Followers:
Following:
I agree, and I thought the same approach. However, my concern is more about
%ValidateIndices()itself in InterSystems IRIS.For large tables with heavily corrupted indexes, the bottleneck is not necessarily retaining
tErrorsafter execution, but the fact that%ValidateIndices()builds large local arrays internally. If a single index contains a large number of corrupt entries, the process could still hit excessive memory usage or before control even returns to the caller.The main point here is that the requirement is only to identify the corrupted index name, not to collect every corrupted entry into
tErrors.Currently there’s no lightweight mode to:
without materializing all failed entries into local arrays.