Re: Bizarre scenario solved by READWRITE clause on end of SELECT SQL (SOLVED)

2020-06-30 Thread Man-wai Chang
That sounds more like a program bug then... :)

That app I was talking about didn't use database container, all DBFs.
And no triggers.

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 2:11 AM MB Software Solutions, LLC
 wrote:
>
> How does that have anything to do with the price of tea in China?   lol
>
> It wasn't that an index was out of whack; it's that the attempt to fully
> optimize caused VFP to unfortunately filter the table instead of give me
> an inaccurate count of the cursor.

-- 
 .~. Might, Courage, Vision. SINCERITY!
/ v \ 64-bit Fedora 25 Server Spin
/( _ )\ http://sites.google.com/site/changmw
^ ^ May the Force and farces be with you!

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: https://leafe.com/archives
This message: 
https://leafe.com/archives/byMID/CAGv=mjcp4t5fzaavpdt70mhk2ilfz-7t3f9rvk4si0pkuxw...@mail.gmail.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.


Re: Bizarre scenario solved by READWRITE clause on end of SELECT SQL (SOLVED)

2020-06-26 Thread MB Software Solutions, LLC

How does that have anything to do with the price of tea in China?   lol

It wasn't that an index was out of whack; it's that the attempt to fully 
optimize caused VFP to unfortunately filter the table instead of give me 
an inaccurate count of the cursor.


On 6/26/2020 11:06 AM, Man-wai Chang wrote:

Maybe your server should reindex all DBFs every night after office
hours! That's what an 10-year-old FoxPro/DOS MIS system I used to
maintain was doing :)

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:33 AM MB Software Solutions, LLC
 wrote:

MYSTERY SOLVED!  IT *WAS* THE DELETED INDEX THAT CAUSED THE CHANGE IN
BEHAVIOR!  I dropped the index, re-ran with the code as it's been the
past 4 years, and it worked completely fine.

So much for my seeing if the DELETED() index helped.   As I said...I
don't think any very small performance gain would be worth the
aggravation this caused.  (Made me doubt other areas working for years
tooyou know, the things nobody yet noticed or told you about?!?!?)






--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: https://leafe.com/archives
This message: 
https://leafe.com/archives/byMID/612afc92-73aa-13a6-ea50-a6b7fa05d...@mbsoftwaresolutions.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.

Re: Bizarre scenario solved by READWRITE clause on end of SELECT SQL (SOLVED)

2020-06-26 Thread Man-wai Chang
Maybe your server should reindex all DBFs every night after office
hours! That's what an 10-year-old FoxPro/DOS MIS system I used to
maintain was doing :)

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:33 AM MB Software Solutions, LLC
 wrote:
>
> MYSTERY SOLVED!  IT *WAS* THE DELETED INDEX THAT CAUSED THE CHANGE IN
> BEHAVIOR!  I dropped the index, re-ran with the code as it's been the
> past 4 years, and it worked completely fine.
>
> So much for my seeing if the DELETED() index helped.   As I said...I
> don't think any very small performance gain would be worth the
> aggravation this caused.  (Made me doubt other areas working for years
> tooyou know, the things nobody yet noticed or told you about?!?!?)




-- 
 .~. Might, Courage, Vision. SINCERITY!
/ v \ 64-bit Fedora 25 Server Spin
/( _ )\ http://sites.google.com/site/changmw
^ ^ May the Force and farces be with you!

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: https://leafe.com/archives
This message: 
https://leafe.com/archives/byMID/CAGv=MJDy3HtqQK=ooymiypx98y_2vxttmhdeubehvme2ayk...@mail.gmail.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.


Re: Bizarre scenario solved by READWRITE clause on end of SELECT SQL (SOLVED)

2020-06-25 Thread Jean Laeremans
' Another classic case is Gender: you always get half the population as
hits.'
Not really true anymore...LOL

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 2:45 PM Ed Leafe  wrote:

> On Jun 24, 2020, at 21:32, MB Software Solutions, LLC <
> mbsoftwaresoluti...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com> wrote:
> >
> > So much for my seeing if the DELETED() index helped.   As I said...I
> don't think any very small performance gain would be worth the aggravation
> this caused.  (Made me doubt other areas working for years tooyou know,
> the things nobody yet noticed or told you about?!?!?)
>
> https://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~NonDiscriminatingIndex
>
> -- Ed Leafe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: https://leafe.com/archives
This message: 
https://leafe.com/archives/byMID/capqlobwejfhzyyvpbffz1fxazsq+ng2mkk-9hwag1mt6cdt...@mail.gmail.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.


Re: Bizarre scenario solved by READWRITE clause on end of SELECT SQL (SOLVED)

2020-06-25 Thread Ed Leafe
On Jun 24, 2020, at 21:32, MB Software Solutions, LLC 
 wrote:
> 
> So much for my seeing if the DELETED() index helped.   As I said...I don't 
> think any very small performance gain would be worth the aggravation this 
> caused.  (Made me doubt other areas working for years tooyou know, the 
> things nobody yet noticed or told you about?!?!?)

https://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~NonDiscriminatingIndex

-- Ed Leafe







___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: https://leafe.com/archives
This message: 
https://leafe.com/archives/byMID/9aea3265-c9ef-4a82-878b-577a706ae...@leafe.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.


Re: Bizarre scenario solved by READWRITE clause on end of SELECT SQL (SOLVED)

2020-06-24 Thread MB Software Solutions, LLC
MYSTERY SOLVED!  IT *WAS* THE DELETED INDEX THAT CAUSED THE CHANGE IN 
BEHAVIOR!  I dropped the index, re-ran with the code as it's been the 
past 4 years, and it worked completely fine.


So much for my seeing if the DELETED() index helped.   As I said...I 
don't think any very small performance gain would be worth the 
aggravation this caused.  (Made me doubt other areas working for years 
tooyou know, the things nobody yet noticed or told you about?!?!?)


Thanks all for your thoughts,
--Mike


On 6/24/2020 5:51 PM, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
The ONLY change I can see in the Order.dbf was that I added a INDEX ON 
DELETED() tag DelFlag.  Must have been that  I know that changed 
the optimization level slightly from partial to full.



On 6/24/2020 5:35 PM, Richard Kaye wrote:
If you don't need the overhead of a writable cursor you can also use 
NOFILTER to force the query engine to not just do a USE...AGAIN with 
a filter. As for why now, the simplest answer I can think of is there 
was something about the query and the source data where Rushmore 
decided the latter strategy was the best way to give the desired 
results.


--

rk

-Original Message-
From: ProfoxTech  On Behalf Of MB 
Software Solutions, LLC

Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 5:24 PM
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Subject: Re: Bizarre scenario solved by READWRITE clause on end of 
SELECT SQL


Correction...user is on a virtual machine with operating system being 
WINDOWS 10 PRO.  (Server is Win 2K12R2)



On 6/24/2020 4:35 PM, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:

VFP9SP2 (build 7423) on Win2K12 Terminal Server client user.

Screenshot: https://www.screencast.com/t/EYptATFR3ETW

Client said app that they have used since 2016 is now acting strange.
In short, a record count being reported about a cursor was now
erroneous.  Underlying cause I found was that VFP was just filtering
on the underlying table, returning the record count of the actual DBF
instead of the record count returned in the query. Solution was to add
the READWRITE clause.

                             *** mjb 06/24/2020 - dev note: select
was settng _tally = 1 but yet RECCOUNT was using the Order.dbf
instead!  Solution was to add READWRITE clause.
                             SELECT invoice ;
                               FROM broker!order f1 ;
                              WHERE vendor_id = liVendorID AND
ven_inv = loRec.ven_inv ;
                               INTO CURSOR cur2ndChance READWRITE

                             IF RECCOUNT('cur2ndChance') = 1 THEN
&& found it
                                 llFound = .T.
                                 liLoadNum = cur2ndChance.invoice
                             ELSE
this.AddToExceptionReport(loRec, RECCOUNT('cur2ndChance'))
                             ENDIF
                             USE IN SELECT('cur2ndChance') && done
with it

Now again, keep in mind that this solution has been working for
years...and when we did an update recently to the database (including
the ORDER.dbf table), then this problem arose.  We did NOT update this
program!

I vaguely recall the Foxperts here saying how VFP, rather than create
a new cursor, would filtering the underlying DBF instead, but what
puzzles me is why this solution worked for 4 years and then suddenly
didn't?!??!?


Appreciate your thoughts on this,
--Mike

[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: https://leafe.com/archives
This message: 
https://leafe.com/archives/byMID/933bdd57-ca55-582c-16ba-aefd4f66b...@mbsoftwaresolutions.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.