Re: VFP8: Update Conflict
Wolfe, Stephen S YA-02 6 MDSS/SGSI wrote: > > >> The one that most often bites me is inadvertently changing a field >> value, and then trying to move the record pointer without first >> > issuing > >> an update (and, sometimes, a requery()) Good luck - those messages >> drive me mad. I often give up and just rewrite it as a SPT :( >> > > > Vince care to expand on that a little bit more. Because I think this is > my problem. > > So, the order of table events should be: > > 1. Make modification to updateable field > 2. Do a TABLEUPDATE() > 3. The move record pointer > > Does that sound right? > Yes, although it's a lot easier to inadvertently move the pointer than you might realize, which is what bites me. eg, if you're on a record, and move to another page in a page frame that performs some sort of lookup on the same table in the Activate() method - that sort of thing. Also, just creating the record is a mod. HTH. ___ 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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: VFP8: Update Conflict
OK, I'm now back to actually doing work instead of reading [OT]. The PK in the table is an identity key that does not get updated. v/r //SIGNED// Stephen S. Wolfe, YA2, DAF 6th MDG Data Services Manager 6th MDG Information System Security Officer Comm (813) 827-9994 DSN 651-9994 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MB Software Solutions Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 11:14 AM To: profox@leafe.com Subject: Re: VFP8: Update Conflict Wolfe, Stephen S YA-02 6 MDSS/SGSI wrote: > What are the 'valid' reasons for getting an update conflict when you are > using a remote view to a MSSQL table back end? The view carves out > selected records and computed values from a single table. Activity on > the table is typically very, very low. Like maybe a few transactions > per second would be considered a heated exchange. The norm is more like > a transaction per 10 - 15 seconds. > > I need some troubleshooting ideas. > > The PK isn't changing on you, is it? -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" [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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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: VFP8: Update Conflict
> The one that most often bites me is inadvertently changing a field > value, and then trying to move the record pointer without first issuing > an update (and, sometimes, a requery()) Good luck - those messages > drive me mad. I often give up and just rewrite it as a SPT :( Vince care to expand on that a little bit more. Because I think this is my problem. So, the order of table events should be: 1. Make modification to updateable field 2. Do a TABLEUPDATE() 3. The move record pointer Does that sound right? v/r //SIGNED// Stephen S. Wolfe, YA2, DAF 6th MDG Data Services Manager 6th MDG Information System Security Officer Comm (813) 827-9994 DSN 651-9994 ___ 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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: VFP8: Update Conflict
To all, A lot of good ideas here to be checked tomorrow; it's now time to plant more corn ... v/r //SIGNED// Stephen S. Wolfe, YA2, DAF 6th MDG Data Services Manager 6th MDG Information System Security Officer Comm (813) 827-9994 DSN 651-9994 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MB Software Solutions Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 2:19 PM To: profox@leafe.com Subject: Re: VFP8: Update Conflict Rick Schummer wrote: > Stephen, > > The conflicts are dependent on the settings for the view. Maybe if you posted the view source code > (Show SQL in the View Designer). Another suggestion is to use the SQL Profiler to see what VFP is > sending back to SQL Server. > > Rick > White Light Computing, Inc. > > www.whitelightcomputing.com > www.rickschummer.com > And Rick wouldn't post this because it's his product, but I'll tell you that I use it daily: http://www.whitelightcomputing.com/prodvieweditorpro.htm Well worth the few bucks it costs, and saves that and more than pays for itself having it part of your developer toolbox --Michael -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" [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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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: VFP8: Update Conflict
Rick Schummer wrote: > Stephen, > > The conflicts are dependent on the settings for the view. Maybe if you posted > the view source code > (Show SQL in the View Designer). Another suggestion is to use the SQL > Profiler to see what VFP is > sending back to SQL Server. > > Rick > White Light Computing, Inc. > > www.whitelightcomputing.com > www.rickschummer.com > And Rick wouldn't post this because it's his product, but I'll tell you that I use it daily: http://www.whitelightcomputing.com/prodvieweditorpro.htm Well worth the few bucks it costs, and saves that and more than pays for itself having it part of your developer toolbox --Michael -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" ___ 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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: VFP8: Update Conflict
Stephen, The conflicts are dependent on the settings for the view. Maybe if you posted the view source code (Show SQL in the View Designer). Another suggestion is to use the SQL Profiler to see what VFP is sending back to SQL Server. Rick White Light Computing, Inc. www.whitelightcomputing.com www.rickschummer.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wolfe, Stephen S YA-02 6 MDSS/SGSI Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 10:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: VFP8: Update Conflict What are the 'valid' reasons for getting an update conflict when you are using a remote view to a MSSQL table back end? The view carves out selected records and computed values from a single table. Activity on the table is typically very, very low. Like maybe a few transactions per second would be considered a heated exchange. The norm is more like a transaction per 10 - 15 seconds. I need some troubleshooting ideas. TIA v/r //SIGNED// Stephen S. Wolfe, YA2, DAF 6th MDG Data Services Manager 6th MDG Information System Security Officer Comm (813) 827-9994 DSN 651-9994 [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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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: VFP8: Update Conflict
Wolfe, Stephen S YA-02 6 MDSS/SGSI wrote: > What are the 'valid' reasons for getting an update conflict when you are > using a remote view to a MSSQL table back end? The view carves out > selected records and computed values from a single table. Activity on > the table is typically very, very low. Like maybe a few transactions > per second would be considered a heated exchange. The norm is more like > a transaction per 10 - 15 seconds. > The one that most often bites me is inadvertently changing a field value, and then trying to move the record pointer without first issuing an update (and, sometimes, a requery()) Good luck - those messages drive me mad. I often give up and just rewrite it as a SPT :( ___ 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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: VFP8: Update Conflict
On 4/16/07, Wolfe, Stephen S YA-02 6 MDSS/SGSI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What are the 'valid' reasons for getting an update conflict when you are > using a remote view to a MSSQL table back end? The view carves out > selected records and computed values from a single table. Activity on > the table is typically very, very low. Like maybe a few transactions > per second would be considered a heated exchange. The norm is more like > a transaction per 10 - 15 seconds. I remember having trouble once with a mismatch between char fields on the Fox side and varchars on the server side, but I think that was Oracle. Still, might this be the problem? ___ 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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: VFP8: Update Conflict
> What are the 'valid' reasons for getting an update conflict when you are > using a remote view to a MSSQL table back end? The view carves out > selected records and computed values from a single table. Activity on > the table is typically very, very low. Like maybe a few transactions > per second would be considered a heated exchange. The norm is more like > a transaction per 10 - 15 seconds. > > I need some troubleshooting ideas. Just a WAG, but do you have a timestamp column in the table? -- Derek ___ 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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: VFP8: Update Conflict
On 4/16/07, Wolfe, Stephen S YA-02 6 MDSS/SGSI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What are the 'valid' reasons for getting an update conflict when you are > using a remote view to a MSSQL table back end? 1. Someone else updated the data. 2. You're specifying the wrong records to update. 3. You've got some process that changes the oldval-newval comparisons that VFP uses to generate the SQL update statement. 4. There's an error in your view definition. Remote views generate a SQL statement that attempts to update the record. How that's formed depends on the settings in the view definition. One of the best ways to troubleshoot update conflicts is to get the ODBC Manager logging enabled and to review the actual SQL statement's that issued. > The view carves out > selected records and computed values from a single table. Activity on > the table is typically very, very low. Like maybe a few transactions > per second would be considered a heated exchange. The norm is more like > a transaction per 10 - 15 seconds. So, this view is in production, and "normally" works, but is only throwing an error sometimes? I'd review my view definition of which fields are updateable and how the update is specified. Use GENDBC to generate the equivalent code the view designer uses. -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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: VFP8: Update Conflict
Wolfe, Stephen S YA-02 6 MDSS/SGSI wrote: > What are the 'valid' reasons for getting an update conflict when you are > using a remote view to a MSSQL table back end? The view carves out > selected records and computed values from a single table. Activity on > the table is typically very, very low. Like maybe a few transactions > per second would be considered a heated exchange. The norm is more like > a transaction per 10 - 15 seconds. > > I need some troubleshooting ideas. > > The PK isn't changing on you, is it? -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" ___ 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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.
