I would concur that it is tedious and sometimes frustrating, but if the data is perceived as valuable and there is no other recovery option, then it might be worth it to try, even if the only good ultimate outcome is demonstration of effort that goes "above and beyond the call" ...
Steve in Memphis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Albert Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 3:51 PM Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Note Fields - Razzak's Reply > 1. Actually, every table needs the pointers. A note entry may be sandwiched between an entry from a second table and another entry for yet a third table. The indexes feed the system the pointer value of the row, so if the pointer is broken, the data cannot be found, indexed or not. > > 2. Autochk will identify broken pointers in each and every table > > 3. RScope cannot _automatically_ fix broken pointers in a table with variable length rows. It is possible to fix them manually, but I would not want to. This is the ultimate in tedium and frustration. > > "Fogelson, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Thanks again for the responses. > > > >After reading Razzak's articles, I have come to the conclusion that by > >designing the DB structure with Note tables for each table that need note > >fields: > > > >1) That the "Note table" doesn't really need previous and next pointers > >(even though it normally does have them) as this table is only referenced by > >the primary key from the parent table. > > > >2) We would probably not even notice that there was a broken pointer in a > >"Note table". Would Autochk pick this up? > > > >I still am not sure if R:Scope would fix a broken pointer in a "Note Table". > > > >Thanks > > > >Steve > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: A. Razzak Memon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 1:54 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Note Fields - Razzak's Reply > > > > > > > >At 11:09 AM 9/17/2003 -0500, Steve Fogelson wrote: > > > >>A while back I had asked about Text vs. Note fields. > >> > >>A few responses indicated that they keep all "note"s in a separate table. > >>Evidently problems with broken pointers. > >> > >>I assume you design your DBs with a table for ALL notes. And all the other > >>tables contain Note_ID fields where appropriate, that point to that note in > >>the note table. Then use a view to read a row including the note. > >> > >>Are these assumptions correct? > >> > >>Could someone elaborate on this design and problems with broken pointers. > >>How is this design strategy easier to fix broken pointers? > > > > > >Steve, > > > >Take a look at the following two articles: > > > > From The Edge: http://www.razzak.com/fte > > > >Understanding and Using VARCHAR Data Type (07/18/2002) > > > >Finding and Fixing Broken Indexes (04/30/2002) > > > >Hope that helps! > > > >Very Best R:egards, > > > >Razzak. > > > > > > > -- > Albert Berry > Full Time Consultant to > PSD Solutions > 350 West Hubbard, Suite 210 > Chicago, IL 60610 > 312-828-9253 Ext. 32 > > > __________________________________________________________________ > McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. > Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! > http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 > > Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! > http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 >
