From: Jamal on
Then there must be something in your index expression.

Can you try to make bare bones sample which creates the index and does the
seek without relying on any defaults of the RDD.
Will help in testing it.

Jamal


"Karl Faller" <k.faller_withoutthat_(a)onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:kttjm5d4g3r34tjnva9phk7jfqe3nmf2dn(a)4ax.com...
> Jamal
>
>>I assume you're doing soft seek. Right.
> No
>
>>Do the following
>>
>>Setorder(...) // result checked
>>self:gotop()
>>Self:Server:Seek(cKey)
> Sorry, but no go. These is the actual code...
> METHOD SuchNachDBObjekt ( MyKey, lSoftie ) CLASS dtaWinBase
> ... // some locals...
> Default( @lSoftie, FALSE )
> OldOrder:= SELF: Server: INDEXORD()
> IF ! SELF: Server : SetOrder( MySuchOrder ) // 2/10 KF
> Meldung("Error", "Suchorder konnte nicht gesetzt werden!")
> ENDIF
>
> SELF: GoTop()
> IF Empty( MyKey )
> NewRec := SELF: Server: RecNo
> lSuccess := TRUE
> ELSE
> IF SELF: Server: Seek( MyKey, lSoftie )
>
> Thx anyway
> Karl

From: Karl Faller on
Hi Gerhard,
>> Default( @lSoftie, FALSE )
>> OldOrder:= SELF: Server: INDEXORD()
>> IF ! SELF: Server : SetOrder( MySuchOrder ) // 2/10 KF
>> Meldung("Error", "Suchorder konnte nicht gesetzt werden!")
>> ENDIF
>
>- 'MySuchOrder' is not defined in your code.
some lines above it is, that's the problem with stripping down code
;-)

> Did you check that value?
Yes - can see it in the debugger set
> Is
>MySuchOrder a string or a numeric value?
String, the Orderexp is simply "Firma", i.e., build by the value of
Field "Firma". My Seek expr is "Hi", so also no chance for any
Ansi/OEM mismatch, i think.

>- Set your order and check that setting with
>SELF:Server:OrderInfo(DBOI_NAME) or SELF:Server:OrderInfo(DBOI_NUMBER).
s.a.

Karl


>
>HTH
>
>Gerhard
>
>
>
>
>"Karl Faller" <k.faller_withoutthat_(a)onlinehome.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:kttjm5d4g3r34tjnva9phk7jfqe3nmf2dn(a)4ax.com...
>> Jamal
>>
>>>I assume you're doing soft seek. Right.
>> No
>>
>>>Do the following
>>>
>>>Setorder(...) // result checked
>>>self:gotop()
>>>Self:Server:Seek(cKey)
>> Sorry, but no go. These is the actual code...
>> METHOD SuchNachDBObjekt ( MyKey, lSoftie ) CLASS dtaWinBase
>> ... // some locals...
>> Default( @lSoftie, FALSE )
>> OldOrder:= SELF: Server: INDEXORD()
>> IF ! SELF: Server : SetOrder( MySuchOrder ) // 2/10 KF
>> Meldung("Error", "Suchorder konnte nicht gesetzt werden!")
>> ENDIF
>>
>> SELF: GoTop()
>> IF Empty( MyKey )
>> NewRec := SELF: Server: RecNo
>> lSuccess := TRUE
>> ELSE
>> IF SELF: Server: Seek( MyKey, lSoftie )
>>
>> Thx anyway
>> Karl
>
From: Mathias on
Karl,

are there any other characters in the other records that may affect
the result? I have noticed that a "-" is sorted differently in VO1 and
VO2. I guess something similar could happen if using different
settings when indexing compared to when seeking. Check SetAnsi,
SetCollation, SetNatDLL and the national settings in windows.

For my applications to work in sweden I have found that
SetAnsi(true), SetCollation(#Windows) and not using the national dll
works best.

Mathias
From: Dave Francis on
Karl,

I have seen the same problem (though it varies with different versions of
cmVODBX). However I set oemansi/collation, I find the indexes are
inconsistent. We have a rule now that we never use cmVODBX to create
indexes - it does not often go wrong, but when it does it takes an age to
sort out because you do not expect such an elementary problem. If we create
the index in the app we use the index in, there is never a problem for us.
It may even be some sort of dll hell here, who can say?

There must be a relatively simple logical explanation for this, but it
happens so infrequently, I have stopped looking for it.

HTH

Dave Francis


"Karl Faller" <k.faller_withoutthat_(a)onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:uqukm55set6f6cbsa43mgejh2thnth0ki0(a)4ax.com...
> Hi Gerhard,
>>> Default( @lSoftie, FALSE )
>>> OldOrder:= SELF: Server: INDEXORD()
>>> IF ! SELF: Server : SetOrder( MySuchOrder ) // 2/10 KF
>>> Meldung("Error", "Suchorder konnte nicht gesetzt werden!")
>>> ENDIF
>>
>>- 'MySuchOrder' is not defined in your code.
> some lines above it is, that's the problem with stripping down code
> ;-)
>
>> Did you check that value?
> Yes - can see it in the debugger set
>> Is
>>MySuchOrder a string or a numeric value?
> String, the Orderexp is simply "Firma", i.e., build by the value of
> Field "Firma". My Seek expr is "Hi", so also no chance for any
> Ansi/OEM mismatch, i think.
>
>>- Set your order and check that setting with
>>SELF:Server:OrderInfo(DBOI_NAME) or SELF:Server:OrderInfo(DBOI_NUMBER).
> s.a.
>
> Karl
>
>
>>
>>HTH
>>
>>Gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Karl Faller" <k.faller_withoutthat_(a)onlinehome.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:kttjm5d4g3r34tjnva9phk7jfqe3nmf2dn(a)4ax.com...
>>> Jamal
>>>
>>>>I assume you're doing soft seek. Right.
>>> No
>>>
>>>>Do the following
>>>>
>>>>Setorder(...) // result checked
>>>>self:gotop()
>>>>Self:Server:Seek(cKey)
>>> Sorry, but no go. These is the actual code...
>>> METHOD SuchNachDBObjekt ( MyKey, lSoftie ) CLASS dtaWinBase
>>> ... // some locals...
>>> Default( @lSoftie, FALSE )
>>> OldOrder:= SELF: Server: INDEXORD()
>>> IF ! SELF: Server : SetOrder( MySuchOrder ) // 2/10 KF
>>> Meldung("Error", "Suchorder konnte nicht gesetzt werden!")
>>> ENDIF
>>>
>>> SELF: GoTop()
>>> IF Empty( MyKey )
>>> NewRec := SELF: Server: RecNo
>>> lSuccess := TRUE
>>> ELSE
>>> IF SELF: Server: Seek( MyKey, lSoftie )
>>>
>>> Thx anyway
>>> Karl
>>


From: Karl Faller on
Dave.
to preclude cmVODBX, i removed the whole CDX file and rebuilt it in
the app, but the problem persists. At least i'm happy you know my
problem - had started to think i'm completly gone go-go ;-)

Karl
>
>I have seen the same problem (though it varies with different versions of
>cmVODBX). However I set oemansi/collation, I find the indexes are
>inconsistent. We have a rule now that we never use cmVODBX to create
>indexes - it does not often go wrong, but when it does it takes an age to
>sort out because you do not expect such an elementary problem. If we create
>the index in the app we use the index in, there is never a problem for us.
>It may even be some sort of dll hell here, who can say?
>
>There must be a relatively simple logical explanation for this, but it
>happens so infrequently, I have stopped looking for it.
>
>HTH
>
>Dave Francis
>
>
>"Karl Faller" <k.faller_withoutthat_(a)onlinehome.de> wrote in message
>news:uqukm55set6f6cbsa43mgejh2thnth0ki0(a)4ax.com...
>> Hi Gerhard,
>>>> Default( @lSoftie, FALSE )
>>>> OldOrder:= SELF: Server: INDEXORD()
>>>> IF ! SELF: Server : SetOrder( MySuchOrder ) // 2/10 KF
>>>> Meldung("Error", "Suchorder konnte nicht gesetzt werden!")
>>>> ENDIF
>>>
>>>- 'MySuchOrder' is not defined in your code.
>> some lines above it is, that's the problem with stripping down code
>> ;-)
>>
>>> Did you check that value?
>> Yes - can see it in the debugger set
>>> Is
>>>MySuchOrder a string or a numeric value?
>> String, the Orderexp is simply "Firma", i.e., build by the value of
>> Field "Firma". My Seek expr is "Hi", so also no chance for any
>> Ansi/OEM mismatch, i think.
>>
>>>- Set your order and check that setting with
>>>SELF:Server:OrderInfo(DBOI_NAME) or SELF:Server:OrderInfo(DBOI_NUMBER).
>> s.a.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>>>
>>>HTH
>>>
>>>Gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Karl Faller" <k.faller_withoutthat_(a)onlinehome.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>news:kttjm5d4g3r34tjnva9phk7jfqe3nmf2dn(a)4ax.com...
>>>> Jamal
>>>>
>>>>>I assume you're doing soft seek. Right.
>>>> No
>>>>
>>>>>Do the following
>>>>>
>>>>>Setorder(...) // result checked
>>>>>self:gotop()
>>>>>Self:Server:Seek(cKey)
>>>> Sorry, but no go. These is the actual code...
>>>> METHOD SuchNachDBObjekt ( MyKey, lSoftie ) CLASS dtaWinBase
>>>> ... // some locals...
>>>> Default( @lSoftie, FALSE )
>>>> OldOrder:= SELF: Server: INDEXORD()
>>>> IF ! SELF: Server : SetOrder( MySuchOrder ) // 2/10 KF
>>>> Meldung("Error", "Suchorder konnte nicht gesetzt werden!")
>>>> ENDIF
>>>>
>>>> SELF: GoTop()
>>>> IF Empty( MyKey )
>>>> NewRec := SELF: Server: RecNo
>>>> lSuccess := TRUE
>>>> ELSE
>>>> IF SELF: Server: Seek( MyKey, lSoftie )
>>>>
>>>> Thx anyway
>>>> Karl
>>>
>