Here's the set up from Ralph, first for a network, then for a single
computer.
Numbering using a Recursive Link
Absolute Incrementing numbers on a network without using an ::I field
Step 1 Create field P1F1 -- FORMAT:~GZZZ9~
Step 2 Create field P1F2 -- FORMAT:~G-ZZZ9::H~
Step 3 Create IndexN on P1F2
(ie reverse index of incrementing number)
Step 4 Create P1F2 Formula = minus P1F1
(on ANY CHANGE)
Step 5 Create Recursive Panel link P1F3 using IndexN with no field list
Step 6 Create 2nd Recursive Panel link P1F4 also using IndexN with no
field list
Step 7 Create Formula in P1F1 when Record is SAVED
(IF P1F2=0 THEN
P1F3P1F1 /* ie thru first recursive link */
ELSE
P1F4P1F1 /* ie thru second recursive link */
ENDIF)
+ 1
Note: P1F1 must precede P1F2 in edit order
Absolute Incrementing numbers on a single computer without using an
::I field
Step 1 Create field P1F1 -- FORMAT:~GZZZ9~
Step 2 Create field P1F2 -- FORMAT:~G-ZZZ9::H~
Step 3 Create IndexN on P1F2
(ie reverse index of incrementing number)
Step 4 Create P1F2 Formula = minus P1F1
(on CREATE)
Step 5 Create Recursive Panel link P1F3 using IndexN with no field list
Step 6 Create Formula in P1F1 when Record is CREATED
P1F3P1F1 + 1
Credit for both methods to Ralph Alvy
Don Codling
On 07/04/2014 9:30 AM, Don Friedman wrote:
Ralph Alvy describes a technique that would probably work for you that
eliminates the auto-increment with a self-produced methodology in his
book which is here online somewhere. At the moment I don't have the
book handy and I can't for the life of me remember the name of it
(it's early for me on the east coast, coffee needed) but later today
when I'm back in the office I'll get it for you if no one else has
spoken up about it by then.
Don
*Don Friedman
ProfessionalRecords.Com LLC
PRS Data Systems
*
*205 S Main Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15215
412-784-1600 - 1-800-PRS-FILE
412-784-1615 Fax*
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Jacques Gaijin <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi All,
It was from 1986 thru 1993 that I programmed a comprehensive
application in DataPerfect (appr. 80.000 lines of code, comprising
30 interrelated panels) which administered the complete workflow
for an advertising photography and or movie production studio. A
last set of modules that was added to the application, consisted
of an automated bookkeeping add-on, that would function also as a
stand-alone.
At that time, believing computers would not run any faster than
they did, I programmed each relative link thus, that to obtain an
absolute unique record in the indexes, it had to generate a hidden
date and timestamp at the creation of each new record. When
closing the book-year at years end, through the printer level, the
data would be changed as to block the original data input. This
panel replicated the original (separate) data-input panel and
could also be used to recover old data whenever something would
corrupt the financial files.
Until now the application has continued to work flawlessly. But
with the speed of computers these days, the system does not work
any more when reconstructing the records, because within one
second many records can be generated carrying the same time stamp,
thus corrupting the index(es) for those newly generated records.
Reprogramming this time stamp to a <FORMAT:~GZZZZZZZZZ9::IH~> is
not a good option, given that over time millions of numbers must
be generated; all being unique! Thus I kept one old computer with
an AMD 386 40MHz. processor. Having that system processor running
at half speed, would be sufficient to keep generating records at
less than one record a second, as to comply with each record
keeping a unique value in the indexes.
With this sole computer becoming older and thus more unreliable,
Something must be done to keep the system up and running. I have
tried to find an answer in forcefully slowing the clock speed of
present day processors, but nobody has an answer to that so far.
Another option would be a math formula (applicable to DataPerfect
DPIMP compilation) that could generate unique coding (either
numbers, or a combination of numbers and letters).
Does anyone have a suggestion?
Jacques
_______________________________________________
Dataperf mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.dataperfect.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dataperf
_______________________________________________
Dataperf mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.dataperfect.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dataperf
_______________________________________________
Dataperf mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.dataperfect.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dataperf
