Closed taylorreiter closed 2 years ago
it should! smells like a bug.
what happens when you run
sourmash sig downsample --scaled 2000
on both the input.sig and the database?
oh, you're using abundance queries. much less well tested.
If I run sourmash sig downsample
on input.sig, it downsamples to scaled 2000. Then, when I rerun the search command, I get the same error message.
I don't really want to run in on the database...its a linked file of /group/ctbrowngrp/gtdb/databases/gtdb-rs202.genomic.k21.zip
(started running it, but it got killed :D)
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 09:49:03AM -0800, Taylor Reiter wrote:
If I run
sourmash sig downsample
on input.sig, it downsamples to scaled 2000. Then, when I rerun the search command, I get the same error message.I don't really want to run in on the database...its a linked file of
/group/ctbrowngrp/gtdb/databases/gtdb-rs202.genomic.k21.zip
(started running it, but it got killed :D)
kk. will look into it.
(if you wanted to debug in the meantime, you could use picklists to extract a few signatures from the database with sig cat, and then put them in a new db to generate an example set that should also fail)
I'm confused, because I thought that sourmash would automatically subsample a signature with lower scaled value than the db, or if not automatically, at least downsample when I explicitly set the scaled.
command:
Output/error message: