![]() | ![]() Products ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Home » Technical Support » DBISAM Technical Support » Support Forums » DBISAM General » View Thread |
Messages 1 to 5 of 5 total |
![]() |
Tue, Nov 14 2006 3:06 PM | Permanent Link |
"Robert" | Converting from 3.3 to 4.24 V1
I have a program that runs a query, canned result, with an order by clause. After the query is run, there is a routine that goes thru the query and modifies some fields. Something like procedure modifyQuery(var q : tdbisamquery); While not q.eof do begin q.edit; change something q.post; q.next; end; In V3, this worked OK. Row 1 was always row 1, row 3 always 3, etc. However in V4, the dataset gets rearranged after the fields are changed, and loses the original sequence. It seems as if the rows are resorted. Is this by design, or is it a bug in V4? Robert |
Wed, Nov 15 2006 12:22 AM | Permanent Link |
Jason Lee | Hi Robert,
Does the query have an ORDER BY clause? If so, when you are editing the canned result set are you changing any field values of fields included in the ORDER BY? Regards, -- Jason Lee Elk Run Software Robert wrote: > Converting from 3.3 to 4.24 V1 > > I have a program that runs a query, canned result, with an order by clause. > After the query is run, there is a routine that goes thru the query and > modifies some fields. Something like > > procedure modifyQuery(var q : tdbisamquery); > While not q.eof do begin > q.edit; > change something > q.post; > q.next; > end; > > In V3, this worked OK. Row 1 was always row 1, row 3 always 3, etc. However > in V4, the dataset gets rearranged after the fields are changed, and loses > the original sequence. It seems as if the rows are resorted. > > Is this by design, or is it a bug in V4? > > Robert > > > |
Wed, Nov 15 2006 12:52 AM | Permanent Link |
Jason Lee | Robert,
Sorry...I reread your original post and noticed you are using an ORDER BY clause. In V4, canned result sets are temporarily indexed according to the ORDER BY clause. If you edit any fields that are in the temporary index, then they will be reordered upon post. Regards -- Jason Lee Elk Run Software Jason Lee wrote: > Does the query have an ORDER BY clause? If so, when you are editing the |
Wed, Nov 15 2006 6:59 AM | Permanent Link |
"Robert" | "Jason Lee" <computerguy@wavecable.com> wrote in message news:5B1467CC-2788-489D-8806-A1A3C1A5B714@news.elevatesoft.com... > Robert, > > Sorry...I reread your original post and noticed you are using an ORDER BY > clause. In V4, canned result sets are temporarily indexed according to the > ORDER BY clause. If you edit any fields that are in the temporary index, > then they will be reordered upon post. > Yeah, I had reached the same conclusion. I guess it's by design, which means re-design time for me. Thanks for your help. Robert |
Wed, Nov 15 2006 4:30 PM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Robert,
Per email: << In V3, this worked OK. Row 1 was always row 1, row 3 always 3, etc. However in V4, the dataset gets rearranged after the fields are changed, and loses the original sequence. It seems as if the rows are resorted. Is this by design, or is it a bug in V4? >> V4 uses indexes instead of sorting for ORDER BY and GROUP BY clauses due to the excessive overhead in V3 for the sorting, especially when it came to grouping. So, the short answer is yes, this is by design. Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
This web page was last updated on Wednesday, August 14, 2024 at 03:12 PM | Privacy Policy![]() © 2024 Elevate Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved Questions or comments ? ![]() |