|Subject:||Re: Re:tc.add stops working
|Date:||Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:13:11 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
do you need the table just as a tc in memory? Read the data in a
tc in mem. Otherwise try a tc2.instantiateview and open the tc1
on this table.
"Phil Hassid" <philhassid@ozemailDOTcomDOTau> Wrote in message:
> Hi Thies,
> Thank you for your response. There is no primary key on either table, and
> there never has been. (Both of these tables are created purely for the
> purposes of this program, hence also the large number of fields. There are
> over 400 regular tables in the database itself, mostly with 10-30 fields,
> and all with keys and numerous secondary indexes).
> Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> "thies" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>> Hi Phil,
>> first guess is the primary key
>> Add uses as far as I remember True and False as parameter for add
>> and update as default parameters.
>> So check the primary key of the destination table.
>> "Phil Hassid" <philhassid@ozemailDOTcomDOTau> Wrote in message:
>>> Hi All,
>>> Haven't been here for many years.
>>> I use P8. Program containing about 750 lines of code that has worked
>>> flawlessly for many years (including last 8 or so on same XP Pro
>>> contains a table add
>>> Both tables are first opened with an error trap (and no error ever has
>>> flagged), tc1 is emptied, then after the add both are closed and used
>>> in the program. This (update) segment of the code is only triggered
>>> occasionally, where as the rest of the program is used many times a day,
>>> this occasional use of this update segment is essential to lead to valid
>>> results from subsequent uses of the rest of the program.
>>> About a year ago this tc.add suddenly stopped working. Because it was
>>> used occasionally I discovered the telling fact that immediately after
>>> running the program (with the tc.add failing) the tc2 table was exactly
>>> it should be and the tc1 table was still empty but in the correct
>>> (whereas it should be the same as the tc2 table both in structure and
>>> contents) and if I simply did a manual add of the tc2 table to the tc1
>>> I could then run the rest of the program and get correct outputs, so I
>>> used that as a workaround.
>>> There have been no program changes, no OS/System changes, no table
>>> changes, nothing. The sizes of the tables are small by your standards
>>> (<15,000 records, although 236 fields) and have increased in size only
>>> incrementally over the years. Both tables have DB, TV and FAM files only.
>>> The TV file of the tc1 table did alter about a year ago but I am 90% sure
>>> that that was after first discovering the problem, then going into table
>>> restructure to look around, then on exiting table structure accidentally
>>> accepting rather than rejecting the changed table view, so seriously
>>> that this is related.
>>> Can anyone think of some generic reason this might happen? TIA
>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
----Android NewsGroup Reader----