Prev: Report Pro question
Next: CATO*.DLL problem
From: K Yorke on 20 Jan 2010 07:11
Currently converting and upgrading an old stable app from using DBFNTX to
DBFCDX indexes in VO 2.6 (Yes I know 2.6 is old <g>).
One DBF has one numeric key field and several string key fields.
dbserver:seek(string) performs correctly.
dbserver:seek(number) always returns TRUE on every record even when the
number is not the same as the keyfield value. Same behaviour irrespective of
Softseek setting. It finds the record 1 when the LAST parameter is FALSE and
finds last record when LAST parameter is TRUE irrespective of the numeric
key value.

Several years ago I believe this bug (or something very similar) was found
in the VO2.5a _DBFCDX.RDD and at that time this group recommended replacing
the _DBFCDX.RDD file with an earlier version from VO2.5 without the bug.

The version of _DBFCDX.RDD supplied with my VO2.6 says it is "2.5.0.612 for
VO2.5a-1" which oddly appears to be the same version supplied with VO2.5a.

Is there a newer version of this file that is compatible with VO2.6 without
the Seek bug?
Or is the older VO2.5 version (not VO 2.5a) compatible with VO2.6 (and if so
where can I get a copy of the RDD file)?

Otherwise I guess I will have to "stringify" my numeric indexes instead.

Ken Yorke


From: Ginny Caughey on 20 Jan 2010 10:14
I don't know the answer to your question, but when the first bug in CDX
numeric indexes popped up during the CA days, I made all my index keys
strings instead and I have never regretted that. I'd say just do it. (Of
course I'd also say not to use anything as old as 2.6 too.)

--

Ginny Caughey
www.wasteworks.com




"K Yorke" <kyorke(a)tpgi.com.au> wrote in message
news:4b56f2f5$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Currently converting and upgrading an old stable app from using DBFNTX to
> DBFCDX indexes in VO 2.6 (Yes I know 2.6 is old <g>).
> One DBF has one numeric key field and several string key fields.
> dbserver:seek(string) performs correctly.
> dbserver:seek(number) always returns TRUE on every record even when the
> number is not the same as the keyfield value. Same behaviour irrespective
> of Softseek setting. It finds the record 1 when the LAST parameter is
> FALSE and finds last record when LAST parameter is TRUE irrespective of
> the numeric key value.
>
> Several years ago I believe this bug (or something very similar) was found
> in the VO2.5a _DBFCDX.RDD and at that time this group recommended
> replacing the _DBFCDX.RDD file with an earlier version from VO2.5 without
> the bug.
>
> The version of _DBFCDX.RDD supplied with my VO2.6 says it is "2.5.0.612
> for VO2.5a-1" which oddly appears to be the same version supplied with
> VO2.5a.
>
> Is there a newer version of this file that is compatible with VO2.6
> without the Seek bug?
> Or is the older VO2.5 version (not VO 2.5a) compatible with VO2.6 (and if
> so where can I get a copy of the RDD file)?
>
> Otherwise I guess I will have to "stringify" my numeric indexes instead.
>
> Ken Yorke
>
From: dlzc on 20 Jan 2010 15:33
Dear K Yorke:

On Jan 20, 5:11 am, "K Yorke" <kyo...(a)tpgi.com.au> wrote:
....
> Otherwise I guess I will have to "stringify"
> my numeric indexes instead.

Ginny is absolutely correct. The numbers are stored as strings in the
DBF, so handle them as strings in your index (and seek expression
formation). Just remember to "pad" both strings the same way, so that
" 11.20" =/= " 1.20".

David A. Smith
From: Geoff Schaller on 23 Jan 2010 20:38
Ken,

VO 2.6 is really VO 2.5c so the RDD etc are all compatible.

However, you would be doing yourself a favour upgrading to VO 2.8 SP3 at
the same time. Honestly, there are just way too many bugs and issues
fixed and a bunch of new things. Just the IDE improvements alone are
worth it, let alone the class improvements.

We can help you convert if you need it.

Geoff


"K Yorke" <kyorke(a)tpgi.com.au> wrote in message
news:4b56f2f5$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au:

> Currently converting and upgrading an old stable app from using DBFNTX to
> DBFCDX indexes in VO 2.6 (Yes I know 2.6 is old <g>).
> One DBF has one numeric key field and several string key fields.
> dbserver:seek(string) performs correctly.
> dbserver:seek(number) always returns TRUE on every record even when the
> number is not the same as the keyfield value. Same behaviour irrespective of
> Softseek setting. It finds the record 1 when the LAST parameter is FALSE and
> finds last record when LAST parameter is TRUE irrespective of the numeric
> key value.
>
> Several years ago I believe this bug (or something very similar) was found
> in the VO2.5a _DBFCDX.RDD and at that time this group recommended replacing
> the _DBFCDX.RDD file with an earlier version from VO2.5 without the bug.
>
> The version of _DBFCDX.RDD supplied with my VO2.6 says it is "2.5.0.612 for
> VO2.5a-1" which oddly appears to be the same version supplied with VO2.5a.
>
> Is there a newer version of this file that is compatible with VO2.6 without
> the Seek bug?
> Or is the older VO2.5 version (not VO 2.5a) compatible with VO2.6 (and if so
> where can I get a copy of the RDD file)?
>
> Otherwise I guess I will have to "stringify" my numeric indexes instead.
>
> Ken Yorke

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Report Pro question
Next: CATO*.DLL problem