Previous Next

• 08-09-2008, 11:06 AM

  sendless Joined on 08-09-2008, 3:03 PM Posts 2

  incremental processing of W3C logs Reply Contact Hello I'm trying to process W3C log files (Exchange 2003 message tracking files actually), and I need to use the iCheckPoint parameter for incremental processing. Unfortunately, it seems this particular input format does not support this parameter, whereas most of the others do.  Is there a good reason for this?  Has anyone else come across this problem?  Is it possible to process these files using a different input type, eg TSV? thanks

  Tags: iCheckPoint TSV

• 08-10-2008, 3:01 AM

  In reply to

  joelangley Joined on 07-20-2008, 6:37 PM Posts 82	Re: incremental processing of W3C logs Reply Contact  Can I see the query you are using? This would be news to me if this is the case..

• 08-10-2008, 11:42 AM

  In reply to

  sendless Joined on 08-09-2008, 3:03 PM Posts 2

  Re: incremental processing of W3C logs Reply Contact If you use -iCheckPoint on the command line in combination with -i:W3C you'll see the error: Error: invalid parameter "iCheckPoint" For example: \Program Files\Log Parser 2.2\LogParser.exe" "select Time,Message-Subject from 20080725.log" -i:W3C  -iCheckPoint:temp.lpc -o:DATAGRID Error: invalid parameter "iCheckPoint" Whereas with TSV, for example, you don't get the error: "\Program Files\Log Parser 2.2\LogParser.exe" "select Time,Message-Subject from 20080725.log" -i:TSV -nSkipLines:2 -iCheckpoint:.\temp.lpc -o:DATAGRID Also, if you look in the LogParser 2.2 help file under Reference/Input Formats, you'll see that iCheckPoint is listed as a possible parameter for most input formats, but not for W3C. I can get away with using TSV instead to process Exchange 2003 tracking files I think, but is there a downside to not using W3C?

• 08-10-2008, 3:06 PM

  In reply to

  joelangley Joined on 07-20-2008, 6:37 PM Posts 82

  Re: incremental processing of W3C logs Reply Contact I never knew this but it seems you are right. The only downside that I read about on this forum is that ssing the W3C input format for exchange tracking log files has a number of advantages over using the TSV input format, including that '-' are returned directly as NULL. Just seems like you may have to write a bigger query that is more slective on the fields it takes :( I came across this though...is is w3c but interesting (not sure I would do it with real data though) http://www.anonymoos.com/logparser.php