<table>mark, fetch, change confusion

[Don Lipke]

RE: &lt;table&gt;mark, fetch, change confusion

Thanks for the result report for comparison Tom. I too am running W98SE with Build 1498-1051. Here's what I got for trace results:

I unmarked records 1,2,6 before this run:
Curr 1 Next 6
Curr 6 Next 3
Curr 6 Next 3
Curr 3 Next 5
Curr 5 Next 2
Curr 2 Next 4
Curr 6 Next 3
Curr 3 Next 5
Curr 5 Next 2
Curr 2 Next 4
Curr 4 Next 4
-------------------------------------

I ran script again without looking at table:
Curr 1 Next 6
Curr 6 Next 3
Curr 3 Next 5
Curr 5 Next 2
Curr 2 Next 4
Curr 4 Next 4
--------------------------------------

And agan ran script without looking at table:
Curr 1 Next 6
Curr 6 Next 3
Curr 3 Next 5
Curr 5 Next 2
Curr 2 Next 4
Curr 4 Next 4
--------------------------------------

Then unmarked records 1,2,6 and ran again:
Curr 1 Next 6
Curr 6 Next 3
Curr 6 Next 3
Curr 3 Next 5
Curr 5 Next 2
Curr 2 Next 4
Curr 6 Next 3
Curr 3 Next 5
Curr 5 Next 2
Curr 2 Next 4
Curr 4 Next 4

Do you get this difference between starting with unmarked records and with already marked records?

If this quirky stuff doesn't happen the same on your system, I'm ready to swap computer names and make a different machine my Alpha5 computer.

I am getting so much back to think about that now I'm beginning to feel guilty about my slow responses.

And I want to warn you wonderful wizards about my prophecy for the future of the world:

I've been trying to program computers since punch cards and ASR-33's and I know a lot about them which ain't more than half wrong so I'm warning you to prepare yourselves for the truth that will be discovered soon: COMPUTERS AND THEIR SOFTWARE WILL NEVER BE FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THIS WORLD!

;-? Don

[Don Lipke]

RE: &lt;table&gt;mark, fetch, change confusion

John,

I tested the use of a text field calculated from memo field as the index key and found that "stablilzed" results on my old code and Tom Cone's code. It runs same on repeat passes as on the first pass.

I think the biggest problem I has is solved by this point I learned from you..."Don't index and fetch based on a memo field!" It'll be in my personal Alpha5 notebook.

Thanks for your comments and help.

Don

[Don Lipke]

RE: &lt;table&gt;mark, fetch, change confusion

John,

I tested the use of a text field calculated from memo field as the index key and found that "stablilzed" results on my old code and Tom Cone's code. It runs the same on repeat passes as on the first pass.

I think the biggest problem I has is solved by this point I learned from you..."Don't index and fetch based on a memo field!" It'll be in my personal Alpha5 notebook.

Thanks for your comments and help.

Don

[Don Lipke]

RE: &lt;table&gt;mark, fetch, change confusion

Peter,

This last code does just what I need for condensing data im my ad database. Thanks for your creative approach using the pointer advance upon deleting a record.

I also learned from both you and John that I will steer clear of indexing and fetching based upon a memo field in future uses of Alpha5.

I really appreciate the support all three of you (Tom, John, and you) have given a beginner like me on this forum. I will try to repay the favor to others...(I don't anticipate being of much direct help to you three!)

Sincerely,
Don Lipke