Alastair,
The "ORDER BY" AND "ARRANGE BY" syntax exist for almost all
places where you need to control the sequence for manipulating
and presenting table rows. About the only place I would like to
have the ORDER BY clause added is in the "SELECT
(LISTOF(colname)) FROM tblname WHERE whereclause syntax.
Jim Bentley
--- Alastair Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
Jim Bentley
American Celiac Society
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: 1-504-737-3293
