Mixing the DBF() model and the SQL model causes funny stuff like this. Why it ever worked... oh, wait, just saw your last post: adding DELETED() means that a Rushmore-izable filter could be defined on indexes, which it could not before. That's why.
if you did a SELECT COUNT(*) instead, you wouldn't have to check RECCOUNT(). Or _TALLY. Or avoid SQK altogether with LOCATE and FOUND(), SEEK, even. On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:52 PM MB Software Solutions, LLC < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of MB > Software Solutions, LLC > > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 5:24 PM > > To: [email protected] > > 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: [email protected] 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/CACW6n4uYMxr_Lng28QPdUay=pwr_w-5dr2qppavipr5wegp...@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.
