![]() | ![]() Products ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Home » Technical Support » ElevateDB Technical Support » Support Forums » ElevateDB SQL » View Thread |
Messages 1 to 6 of 6 total |
![]() |
Sat, May 12 2007 7:12 PM | Permanent Link |
Paul B | Tim,
You are probably working the usual 24-7-52 scedule to get the 1.03 release ready. Therefore I am a bit unhappy to present you with a puzzle, which seems like a bug to me, but just may be just me misunderstanding something. I'm using 1.02 on an XP SP2 machine, trying to convert an existing DBISAM project to EDB. I keep running into errors related to SELECT ...ORDER BY statements. This happens both using my own coding or using SQL in the EDB Manager. To simplify things a bit, I will just show you the SQL used in EDBMgr using the Sample DB: 1: SELECT * FROM Orders ORDER BY CustomerID, OrderNumber - this executes OK 2: SELECT * FROM Orders ORDER BY CustomerID, OrderNumber, OrderDate - this gives an error "Access violation at address 004E4A34 in module 'edbmgr.exe'. Read of address 00000000" 3: SELECT * FROM Orders ORDER BY OrderNumber, OrderDate, CustomerID - this again executes OK From other tests it seems, that an ORDER BY with more than 2 columns gives an error if the first column is in an index?? Best regards, Paul B |
Sun, May 13 2007 5:59 AM | Permanent Link |
"Harry de Boer" | Paul, Tim
I can confirm that there is something strange going on. With me: select * from registraties order by id_medewerker, datum, aanvang executed OK, but select * from registraties order by id_medewerker, datum, aanvang, einde results in an AV. id_medewerker VARCHAR(10) indexed datum DATE indexed aanvang TIME indexed einde TIME not indexed Primary Key: id_medewerker,datum, aanvang So it seems that this does not happen only after two columns; the first statement executes OK with three columns in the OB clause. Regards, Harry "Paul B" <paulpbcon@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:9249986F-F9E2-4BE0-9C56-D40105D7B878@news.elevatesoft.com... > Tim, > > You are probably working the usual 24-7-52 scedule to get the 1.03 release ready. Therefore I am a bit unhappy to present you with a puzzle, which seems like a bug to me, but just may > be just me misunderstanding something. > > I'm using 1.02 on an XP SP2 machine, trying to convert an existing DBISAM project to EDB. I keep running into errors related to SELECT ...ORDER BY statements. This happens both using > my own coding or using SQL in the EDB Manager. > > To simplify things a bit, I will just show you the SQL used in EDBMgr using the Sample DB: > > 1: SELECT * FROM Orders ORDER BY CustomerID, OrderNumber - this executes OK > 2: SELECT * FROM Orders ORDER BY CustomerID, OrderNumber, OrderDate - this gives an error "Access violation at address 004E4A34 in module 'edbmgr.exe'. Read of address > 00000000" > 3: SELECT * FROM Orders ORDER BY OrderNumber, OrderDate, CustomerID - this again executes OK > > From other tests it seems, that an ORDER BY with more than 2 columns gives an error if the first column is in an index?? > > Best regards, > > Paul B > > > > |
Sun, May 13 2007 9:19 AM | Permanent Link |
"Harry de Boer" | Mmmmm............
select * from registraties order by id_medewerker, datum is OK, but select * from registraties order by datum, id_medewerker also gives an AV. There's definitly something wrong, bu it seems ONLY TO OCCUR when using 'live' queries. Hopes this helps. Regards, Harry "Harry de Boer" <harry@staaf.nl> schreef in bericht news:FA9B7CB5-0F3F-4AB5-9EE5-11A6C6DD1156@news.elevatesoft.com... > Paul, Tim > > I can confirm that there is something strange going on. With me: > > select * from registraties > order by id_medewerker, datum, aanvang > > executed OK, but > > select * from registraties > order by id_medewerker, datum, aanvang, einde > > results in an AV. > > id_medewerker VARCHAR(10) indexed > datum DATE indexed > aanvang TIME indexed > einde TIME not indexed > Primary Key: id_medewerker,datum, aanvang > > So it seems that this does not happen only after two columns; the first > statement executes OK with three columns in the OB clause. > > Regards, Harry > > > "Paul B" <paulpbcon@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht > news:9249986F-F9E2-4BE0-9C56-D40105D7B878@news.elevatesoft.com... > > Tim, > > > > You are probably working the usual 24-7-52 scedule to get the 1.03 release > ready. Therefore I am a bit unhappy to present you with a puzzle, which > seems like a bug to me, but just may > > be just me misunderstanding something. > > > > I'm using 1.02 on an XP SP2 machine, trying to convert an existing DBISAM > project to EDB. I keep running into errors related to SELECT ...ORDER BY > statements. This happens both using > > my own coding or using SQL in the EDB Manager. > > > > To simplify things a bit, I will just show you the SQL used in EDBMgr > using the Sample DB: > > > > 1: SELECT * FROM Orders ORDER BY CustomerID, OrderNumber - this executes > OK > > 2: SELECT * FROM Orders ORDER BY CustomerID, OrderNumber, OrderDate - this > gives an error "Access violation at address 004E4A34 in module 'edbmgr.exe'. > Read of address > > 00000000" > > 3: SELECT * FROM Orders ORDER BY OrderNumber, OrderDate, CustomerID - this > again executes OK > > > > From other tests it seems, that an ORDER BY with more than 2 columns gives > an error if the first column is in an index?? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Paul B > > > > > > > > > > |
Sun, May 13 2007 5:31 PM | Permanent Link |
Paul B | "Harry de Boer" <harry@staaf.nl> wrote:
Mmmmm............ select * from registraties order by id_medewerker, datum is OK, but select * from registraties order by datum, id_medewerker also gives an AV. There's definitly something wrong, bu it seems ONLY TO OCCUR when using 'live' queries. Hopes this helps. ------------------- Harry, I can confirm that example 2 (SELECT * FROM Orders ORDER BY CustomerID, OrderNumber, OrderDate ) in my original message executes OK when NOT using Sensitive Result My own DB and application-code also performs OK when RequestSensitive:=False Thanks for the input - now I'm waiting for Tim....... and his solution .... ![]() Paul B |
Mon, May 14 2007 5:39 PM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Paul,
<< You are probably working the usual 24-7-52 scedule to get the 1.03 release ready. Therefore I am a bit unhappy to present you with a puzzle, which seems like a bug to me, but just may be just me misunderstanding something. I'm using 1.02 on an XP SP2 machine, trying to convert an existing DBISAM project to EDB. I keep running into errors related to SELECT ...ORDER BY statements. This happens both using my own coding or using SQL in the EDB Manager. >> You both are on the right track - there are some issues with ORDER BY index selection and sensitive query result sets. I'm aware of the issues and they will be fixed in 1.03. -- Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Wed, May 16 2007 4:47 PM | Permanent Link |
Paul B | "Tim Young [Elevate Software]" <timyoung@elevatesoft.com> wrote:
>>You both are on the right track - there are some issues with ORDER BY index selection and sensitive query result sets. I'm aware of the issues and they will be fixed in 1.03.<< -- Thanks, Tim. I will be waiting by the mailbox for the good news.... Paul B |
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 ? ![]() |