Re: [GNUnet-developers] Usage of super queries

[Hendrik Pagenhardt]

On Wednesday 07 January 2004 20:32, Igor Wronsky wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Hendrik Pagenhardt wrote:
> > watching the stats of my gnunetd (which runs for some months now,
> > with interruptions) I never once saw a value different from 0 for "#
> > lookup (super query)". Does this mean that my server never got asked
> > for a super query block? If yes, what are those used for then?
> > Shouldn't they enable more efficient downloads by bundling queries?
> > Maybe there is a bug preventing the usage of super queries?
>
> Nope. That is a misleading debug statement I once put there
> as I tracked data flow inside gnunetd. The value should never
> be nonzero as super-queries are not something that should
> be looked up from disk.
>
> I'll replace that particular entry with a more proper,
> incrementing counter.

When you removed the statistics, you probably removed LOOKUP_TYPE_SUPER 
from to many places. An insertion now fails with:

Jan 11 15:59:39 WARNING: server could not perform insertion
Jan 11 15:59:39 WARNING: child->insert failed on level 2, pos 0, aborting!
Jan 11 15:59:39 WARNING: child->insert failed on level 3, pos 0, aborting!
Jan 11 15:59:39 WARNING: child->insert failed on level 4, pos 0, aborting!

The gnunetd log shows:

Jan 11 15:59:39 WARNING: tried to insert super query into database
Jan 11 15:59:39 WARNING: unexpected super query block (case 2)

This comes from manager.c "insertContent". Obviously the super queries do 
have to be inserted into the database after all...

Hendrik