[RBG7-L] - Re: Problem with reports (continued...)

[Javier Valencia]

Alastair: I have run reports that run 600+ full pages of data without a problem… Javier,   Javier Valencia, PE President Valencia Technology Group, L.L.C. 14315 S. Twilight Ln, Suite #14 Olathe, Kansas 66062-4578 Office (913)829-0888 Fax (913)649-2904 Cell (913)915-3137 ================================================ Attention: The information contained in this message and or attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all system and destroy all copies. ======================================================   -----Original Message----- From: rbg7-l@rbase.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Alastair Burr Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:25 AM To: RBG7-L Mailing List Subject: [RBG7-L] - Re: Problem with reports (continued...)   Thanks, Emmitt, David & Javier.   Just to confirm that the database has just been reloaded after installing the latest beta and I'm sure that the sort matches the breaks on that report.   I understand what you're saying about resources, Emmitt, but I would expect the point at which the report "stops" to vary with whatever else is running - not much, usually - but, in both cases, the reports stop at the same point each time.   Also, both reports in their v6.5 format run against the same data quite happily so it seems to me to be something else. However, are there any changes that I can make to, for example, the amount of virtual memory, that might have any influence? Even a small subsequent change in the result would tend to confirm what you're suggesting.   Is there anybody else out there who is still using W98SE and can confirm one way or the other if they have any problems with similarly large reports?   Thanks again, Regards, Alastair.     ----- Original Message ----- From: Emmitt Dove To: RBG7-L Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 2:16 PM Subject: [RBG7-L] - Re: Problem with reports (continued...)   Alastair, I think the key here is your platform.  RBG7 likes to have adequate resources, and for our application I recommend a minimum of 512 mb on at least w2k if not XP.  W98 likely isn't up to the task.  You are probably getting to the stage where W98 starts disk thrashing - the application program requires more memory, so it requests it from the OS.  The OS has to swap some application memory out to disk in order to load the part of the OS required to service the request, and in the process takes memory away from the application that was just requesting additional (virtual) memory. We had a reporting application running against a very large database in R:Base for DOS some years back on W98.  When we hit this barrier you could hit ctrl-esc and it would take up to 45 minutes to get back to the desktop.  Under w2k it works just fine, thank you. Alastair   I bet Emmitt is right - he usually is - but just in case, what you're describing would also be consistent with damaged indexes.    Backup the database Do a PACK KEYS on the database   See if that makes a difference   David Blocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also, make sure that the ORDER BY clause in your statement does not conflict with the breaks in the report; I found that if you want to use and ORDER BY clause in your statement, it must include first the exact order of the breaks and then the additional sort. Javier