1

Topic: OBI 11.1.1.6.12 [nQSError: 46036] Internal Assertion

Good afternoon.
Help  to understand as it is possible to overcome a trace an error (Version BI 11.1.1.6.12):
"
State: HY000. Code: 10058. [NQODBC] [SQL_STATE: HY000] [nQSError: 10058] A general error has occurred.
[nQSError: 43113] Message returned from OBIS. [nQSError: 43119] Query Failed:
[nQSError: 46036] Internal Assertion: Condition foundLowestConsistentBreakPos! = m_breakMap.end (),
file server/Query/Optimizer/SmartScheduler/SummaryTransformer/Src/SQOSSMultipleAggrLevel.cpp, line 1301. (HY000)
"
There is rarely launched user report which ceased to work with an error (see above).
The report consists of 26 fields. One field from measurement (Month) remaining 25 (Field1-Field25) - from the fact table.
Situation following:
Situation 1.
1.1. At report start there is an error (see above)
1.2. But if from the report to remove one index field17, the report almost always fulfills. "Almost always" - therefore as some times, nevertheless, it did not help.
Situation 2.
2.1. If the report to start to build with an index field17,
That the same error arises somewhere further, at adding of one of following fields (when Field10, when Field15...).
In the report one filter on months. Sortings are not present. Calculated fields, functions,  are not present.
Data types of all 25  fields both in a DB (number) and in repository BI (double) are identical. Circuits of aggregation of indexes are put down. Index Field17 differs nothing from remaining 24 in this report.

2

Re: OBI 11.1.1.6.12 [nQSError: 46036] Internal Assertion

At least to understand because of what such happens?
Indexes, measurements are gradually added...
Any patches, updates BI, its connections to  were not.

3

Re: OBI 11.1.1.6.12 [nQSError: 46036] Internal Assertion

4

Re: OBI 11.1.1.6.12 [nQSError: 46036] Internal Assertion

warpdiver;
selection steps is not present.
In a repository of a rule of aggregation are installed.
While change of the order of aggregation (in rpd) on various measurements helped.
If only this change did not affect correctness of the data)))