I think that the only reason that it's "more complicated" in later versions is
that there are so many advances in the later versions that protect our data, in
particular, the various constraints.
It's actually not that difficult to set up a system to ensure that everything
is re-loaded in such an order that the constraints can be applied correctly. In
each of my databases I have a table that lists all the tables with columns that
show what constraints a particular table relies on and is relied on by. Another
column is used to manually number the rows so that a cursor can run through
them in the correct order. Once it's set up it only really changes when new
tables are added or, more rarely, when constraints are changed.
Unless I have missed a change, R:Base can unload tables in an order that
prevents an accurate reload if you unload everything in one go. My method takes
care of this so that I can (quickly) rebuild any database and be sure that
there are no database errors - ie, RB1 is re-created and the data inserted into
a completely new set of RBn files. I get the data sorted as a by-product since
I can unload it in the sequence I prefer.
As for nobody else wanting to have sorted tables they, correctly, say there is
no "need". I happen to be able to use and like some of my tables pre-sorted -
particularly those that rarely change. However, my apps take care to sort
_everything_ and, in any case, the order that an app requires the data may not
be the same that I can use in the data browser. I think that I used this
example before but I have a table of music tracks in which the track numbers
are part of the data. A CD's track sequence is never going to change - track 1
will never suddenly need to follow track 2 or track 5. However, I may want to
sort the tracks alphabetically by title and R:Base, of course, does this
admirably whenever needed. I like to have that table pre-sorted so that the
tracks for each item are in numeric sequence for viewing in the browser. I see
that as an additional feature rather than an error of use on my part.
Regards,
Alastair.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred C Kopp
To: RBASE-L Mailing List
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4:46 AM
Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Sorted tables
Alistair, indeed, you have responded to this issue before and I have looked
up your message of 5/5/05. Why can something so simple in 2.11 be so
complicated in 7.6? All I want to do is sort my tables and leave my keys
undisturbed. Am I to understand that everyone else is content to leave their
tables unsorted? If so, I reluctantly bow to the majority, while I continue to
search for a way to defy it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alastair Burr
To: RBASE-L Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 6:08 PM
Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Sorted tables
Looking back, Fred, I seem to think that I, for one, have responded to this
question before - on the 7th of Feb to be precise!
I have a command file that re-builds my databases with all the tables
sorted in the sequence I like - it's yours for the cost of asking for it - it's
a bit too big to post here.
As I said previously:
"I also like to re-build my databases at the turn of each year. As briefly
discussed here earlier this year I do this by unloading the tables in a
particular sequence (of tables) so that they can be reloaded to a new database
without conflicts arising due to missing keys from tables that should have been
loaded first.
Since I have to unload the data anyway I do so with the ORDER BY clause
that best suits each table for my needs.
This, effectively, kills two birds with one stone: I get a clean database
and its tables are pre-sorted."
Regards,
Alastair.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred C Kopp
To: RBASE-L Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:51 PM
Subject: [RBASE-L] - Sorted tables
What if I'm so anal retentive that I want to keep my tables sorted in
certain ways?
In 2.11 I simply ran a file that RENAMEd each table to Temp and PROJECTed
a new, sorted table from Temp. Then I REMOVEd TABLE Temp and moved on to the
next table. After all the sorted tables were projected, my file would BUILD
KEY for each appropriate column in each appropriate table. A PACK or RELOAD
removed the wasted space.
But things have changed...
PKs and other Restraints prohibit this naive approach. I don't even want
to get into the errors I get. I want a single control file that sorts my
tables and preserves / restores my Keys and Restraints. Doesn't seem all that
unusual. How do I do it?
Thanks,
Fred
Fred C. Kopp
Authorized R:Base Developer
19 Teri Lane
Washington, PA 15301
P 724-222-7376
F 724-222-7376
C 724-413-5534
E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1493 - Release Date:
09/06/2008 17:25
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1493 - Release Date: 09/06/2008
17:25
