Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Issue saving & loading larger nested dictionaries from v0.4.53 onwards #603

Closed
matthew-liu-1 opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #604
Closed

Issue saving & loading larger nested dictionaries from v0.4.53 onwards #603

matthew-liu-1 opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #604

Comments

@matthew-liu-1
Copy link

Currently working on a use case that involves saving large nested dictionaries and have recently upgraded JLD2 to v0.5.3 from v0.4.52
After upgrading, dictionaries of an arbitrarily large size can no longer be saved & loaded properly.

This issue appears from JLD2 v0.4.53 onwards.

Analysis:

  1. A large dictionary (see line 58 below) can be saved in JLD2 v0.4.52 and loaded in JLD2 v0.4.53
  2. A large dictionary (see line 58 below) cannot be saved and loaded in JLD2 v0.4.53

Reproducible code example:
https://github.com/matthew-liu-1/JLD2.jl/blob/large_obj_issue/test/jld2_io_error/error_script.jl

System information:
Julia version: 1.10.4
RAM: 32 gb
CPU: 13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-13700H

@matthew-liu-1 matthew-liu-1 changed the title Issue saving larger nested dictionaries from v0.4.53 onwards Issue saving & loading larger nested dictionaries from v0.4.53 onwards Sep 24, 2024
@JonasIsensee
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you for this report. That made it easy to reproduce and possible to track down the problem.

v0.5.4 should fix this and be out later today.

@matthew-liu-1
Copy link
Author

Thank you @JonasIsensee for the quick turnaround!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants