Funny you would ask that question at this moment in time.  I am working with
a client who is (trying) using SQL Server Express 2005 for a data warehouse
project (yikes!), and I am using my VFP tables to populate his SQL temp
tables used to update his SQL production tables.  I created Updateable
Remote Views of his tables, and have been successful in importing data into
said RVs from my VFP tables, as long as the field names and types match of
course.  I did try to do a record-by-record SCATTER-APPEND BLANK-GATHER from
VFP into SQL, and it worked.  I did that to show their one programmer an
alternate method of populating his SQL tables as he got edgy about me doing
a straight import (don't ask... <g>).  Anyway, the SCATTER-APPEND
BLANK-GATHER worked fine.  I did have the Remote View cursor set to record
level buffering, so every time the record pointer moved via APPEND BLANK it
would fire an update for the target SQL table.  He did end up "allowing" me
to do the import process, but I am certain the SCATTER-APPEND BLANK-GATHER
for > 1 million records would have worked fine, just taken a tad longer than
IMPORT FROM at worst.

BTW, the SQL tables were set up with all field types as c(80), whether my
VFP table fields were Numeric, Date, DateTime, Character, or Logical.  He
wondered why he could not get all the tables populated.  SQL Server Express
2005 has a 4Gb max database size limit, and he hit it.  So for the past 3
days he has been rebuilding his SQL tables to match my layouts (I had given
him those specs previously).  I told him how he could use some DISP STRU
created layout files for my VFP tables to translate and alter his tables via
SQL, but he opted to do it all manually I used that DISP STRU file > code to
"convert" my fields through SQL-SELECT output to c(80) for SQL import
purposes.  What a PITA, but better than manually doing it).  Some of my
tables have over 220 fields!  Uggghhh...  But once he gets away from c(80)
squared layouts (not VarChar, he used Char!) he ought to be well under 4Gb
in his database.  If not, he can split the tables between two databases.
Better yet, he ought to move to PostgreSQL!  I bought him a book on
PostgreSQL for Windows the other week as a gift.  He put it on a shelf, and
I bet it is still there.  Shame...

Hard to knock it, I know what it is like to be a newbie with database
solution creation.  At that many in the ProFox group would shudder to see
some of my designs (all for good reason, not mainstream).  I know back in
late 2000 I likely spooked Ed pretty badly when he saw ny core app for the
first time!  Heh-heh.  I made changes based on his recommendations, and it
still runs great!  But I do not recall doing c(80) squared field designs
throughout all tables!  I hope my client moves to PostgreSQL.  The sooner
the better...

Gil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com [mailto:profoxtech-
> boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Rafael Copquin
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:54 PM
> To: profoxt...@leafe.com
> Subject: vfp9 and sqlserver express
> 
> I wonder whether it is possible to send an object from a scatter name
> command in VFP to a SQLServer table.
> 
> IOW, in VFP I do this
> 
> select curCustomers
> scatter name oCust
> 
> insert into customers from name oCust
> 
> Is it possible to do this but trying to insert into a SQLServer table?
> If so, could you post the code?
> 
> Rafael Copquin
> 
> 
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> ---
> 
[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/02d201c9b875$fb675f30$f2361d...@rr.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to