MSHFlexGrid not scrolling beyond 65,535 rows - see Q253211. Any fix?
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: MM on 22 Jun 2010 01:49 On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:38:31 GMT, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >I'm in awe that you and whoever else can't see that populating a grid with >65000 records is lunacy. Nobody can read all that. With more than a few >dozen rows people eyes begin to glaze over. "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981. MM
From: MM on 22 Jun 2010 01:56 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:36:49 -0500, ralph <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.net> wrote: >The next morning I walked in my office to find three boxes full of >fan-fold print out. I spent a few days pretending to peruse it in >detail. Surely you're not trying to say that a grid with more than 65,535 rows is comparable to three boxes of actual *paper*? I really do not see what problem David Kaye and others are seeing here. I can filter the data presented in umpteen different ways, I can use MergeCells to reduce the number of rows quite dramatically, I can indeed build a different SQL query and have only a few rows. The possibilities are endless! But those possibilities are hamstrung if the grid in question has a bug or if it is restricted by design to a pitifully low total number of cells. MM
From: ralph on 22 Jun 2010 08:52 On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 06:56:25 +0100, MM <kylix_is(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:36:49 -0500, ralph <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.net> >wrote: > >>The next morning I walked in my office to find three boxes full of >>fan-fold print out. I spent a few days pretending to peruse it in >>detail. > >Surely you're not trying to say that a grid with more than 65,535 rows >is comparable to three boxes of actual *paper*? > >I really do not see what problem David Kaye and others are seeing >here. I can filter the data presented in umpteen different ways, I can >use MergeCells to reduce the number of rows quite dramatically, I can >indeed build a different SQL query and have only a few rows. The >possibilities are endless! But those possibilities are hamstrung if >the grid in question has a bug or if it is restricted by design to a >pitifully low total number of cells. > Fundamentally, Yes, I AM suggesting that the two scenarios are identical. The only difference is that in one scenerio the ability to present and peruse boxes of data has been dramatically improved. -ralph
From: MM on 22 Jun 2010 11:01 On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:20:14 -0500, dpb <none(a)non.net> wrote: >MM wrote: >... > >> ... But those possibilities are hamstrung if >> the grid in question has a bug or if it is restricted by design to a >> pitifully low total number of cells. > >Only if you insist that the grid is the container for the entire dataset >instead of being merely a viewpoint into a (reasonable) subsection... Are 350,000 cells not a very restricting - and arbitrary - limitation? In any case, I have repeatedly referred to the use of vsFlexGrid's properties MergeCells/MergeCol/MergeRow which provide for significantly condensed views of the data on the fly. I have a checkbox - chkMerge - and I can check or uncheck it and thus instantly obtain a condensed overview as I wish. I can also see instantly which columns/cells don't merge and why, and can then apply suitable modifications using VsFlexString (Awk lookalike). > >None of the selection criterion for subsetting you've mentioned are >affected in any manner whatsoever by there being far fewer than 65K >actual data lines presented; _NOBODY_ can keep more than a few dozen >general patterns in mind at one time and even recognize real pattern >buried in such large morass of data that they can't see just as well in >a few screens. This is nonsense. I can spot patterns in half a million rows easy-peasy just by scrolling through the grid (ScrollTrack = True).Then I can choose maybe a subset to requery on, or I can sort the grid columns in either direction (vsFlexGrid has the ExplorerBar property to facilitate this). I have also implemented search with highlight in any column with F3 to repeat. I can build whatever tools my requirements need. That is the beauty of VB. >The only exception to this would be, of course, structured data where >there's some order already present such that scrolling down will bring >up alternative universes within the overall data set -- but having to do >that manually by scrolling through the entire database at a go is, >indeed, the same thing as leafing through the greenbar. (And frankly, >as I age and the eyesight and patience ebb, I'd prefer the greenbar for >such exploratory stuff if absolutely had to do it because at least with >it I can use the highlighter and page tabs and so on to have many >multiple views directly available that a CRT simply can't do...and >that's a damhikt... :) ) > >OTOH, if it's a familiar universe of data, I could indeed build the >relevant queries and get the desired subsets essentially w/o ever seeing >the raw data other than perhaps a subscreen that gives the ranges for >the screening variables that might be in the particular database subject >matter. That would be things like datestamps, >subject/product/whatever_id, etc., so that the user knows a priori >whether there's even any point in looking for certain classes of events. > But that's best done w/ another summary view, not by expecting the >user to sort thru and guess based on what he can see and remember out of >thousands of entries of who knows how many variables/record... > >$0.02, etc., etc., etc., ... There are many ways to address your apparent problems. You could apply a bookmark to mark certain rows or ranges of rows then do a sort to bring the marked rows to the top. You could select a bunch of rows and transfer them to another grid. You could filter out rows based on certain criteria. Finally, you can of course simply re-run the query underlying the recordset but with different criteria, having seen the results you got. But please don't tie me up in dogma so that I cannot obtain a complete overview of my data simply because this offends your particular design principles! That way is far too restrictive, as is your claim that "_NOBODY_" can do certain things. You cannot possibly know what everyone is capable of. MM
From: Karl E. Peterson on 22 Jun 2010 13:57
ralph submitted this idea : > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:03:25 -0700, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> > wrote: > >> >> Well, sure, but there's never been a model with enough dataspace, and >> sometimes you just gotta go looking at the raw stuff. :-) > > Ha. And if not we would go looking for some way to do so. > > Which reminds me of a particular boring episode in my past - a sure > sign of old age ... > > Way back when, when I was young, a C Unix Systems programmer, and thus > assured I knew everything, But of course. <g> > I was contracted to provide a Venix > workstation access to a proprietary mainframe database (some kind of > Craig/204 look-a-like). > > I was having trouble with the data so I went to the DBAs and asked to > see the raw records. Insisting there was no way I could make sense of > the data without it. They had a pained look, but said they would take > care of it. > > The next morning I walked in my office to find three boxes full of > fan-fold print out. I spent a few days pretending to peruse it in > detail. LOL! Well, I bet you didn't ask them *again* for such a silly need, hmmm? <bg> -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org Customer Hatred Knows No Bounds at MSFT ClassicVB Users Regroup! comp.lang.basic.visual.misc Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-september.org |