Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Data Bases > Paradox > Re: Same form, ...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 52 of 85 Topic 1325 of 1428
Post > Topic >>

Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?

by Dennis Santoro <RDAPres@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Feb 19, 2008 at 10:53 AM

If you do the query to an in memory tcursor (see wantinmemorytcursor in 
the opal help) then the c functions should be fine as you are now 
completely local. It is using cfunctions against shared tables that is 
the problem. But if you want to display a total why not just put a 
sumarry field on the form? Of course it will depend a little on your 
data model but if all the items are related to one check then it would 
seem you would have a structure like

Check.db-->>Detail.db so placing a filed for the detail amount and 
making it a sum would show you the total for that check. Also you can 
likely avoid the query by using the index field for your link from check 
to detail and a setrange which will be light years faster than a query 
if you can't do it with just placing a field.

Denn Santoro
President
Resource Development Associates
http://www.RDAWorldWide.Com
Offices in the United States and Germany
Providing solutions to health care, business, governments and 
non-profits since 1982

Kenneth wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:40:46 +1100, Tom Krieg
> <user@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> IIRC, c-functions place a table lock on the table. Maybe the crash has 
>> to do with the way the BDE is set up on that computer? (Local share, 
>> path to the net directory) or oplocks or write-cacheing or max file 
>> handles or buffer sizes. Maybe there is a lock issue, or the lock files

>> have maxed-out.
>>
>> Doing a registry clean-up with a commercial registry cleaner has 
>> sometimes fixed inexplicable problems and crashes for me (not with 
>> Paradox but Windows and other software).
>>
>> Just thinking out loud.
>>
>> TomK
>>
>> Anders Jonsson wrote:
>>> using cMax in a multi-user environment is a bad idea but it 
>>> shouldn't bring Paradox down.
>>>
> 
> Hello to all,
> 
> I have the form working well, but have a question:
> 
> I wanted to add a button that would display the sum of all
> entries written on a particular check.
> 
> The code runs a query, then a tCursor cSum to get the total.
> 
> But, as is now familiar, on all machines but one, this works
> fine, but that one machine GPFs when the button is clicked.
> 
> Based on the other problems I have had, it would appear that
> the difficulty is in my using cSum to get the total.
> 
> That surprised me because, (though I am accessing the form
> over our Lan) the cSum process itself would seem to be local
> to each machine, that is, it evaluates the cSum on the
> ANSWER.DB that is in the :PRIV: local to each machine.
> 
> Why might that be causing the GPF?
> 
> Also, what is another (better) way for me to get the sum?
> 
> Sincere thanks,
 




 85 Posts in Topic:
Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-12 10:47:20 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-12 12:40:44 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Rodney Wise" &  2008-02-12 14:09:34 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-12 14:54:53 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-12 15:00:16 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Rodney Wise" &  2008-02-12 17:29:44 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-12 19:55:16 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-12 20:30:43 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Rodney Wise" &  2008-02-12 23:16:22 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Michael Kennedy <Info@  2008-02-13 12:15:35 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-12 20:43:57 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-12 23:08:47 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-12 21:34:56 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Jan Stegehuis <alleyho  2008-02-13 14:59:14 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-13 10:32:19 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-13 08:35:05 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-13 13:00:02 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-13 11:04:15 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-13 14:47:21 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-13 12:48:24 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-13 15:31:18 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-13 13:35:15 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-14 10:04:03 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-14 09:02:55 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-14 14:37:16 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Anders Jonsson"  2008-02-15 08:36:40 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-15 11:59:35 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-15 10:46:42 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-15 14:06:42 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Rodney Wise" &  2008-02-16 05:29:34 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-18 09:05:31 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-18 07:44:14 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-18 10:33:32 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-18 08:54:15 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-18 11:12:30 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-18 09:38:05 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-18 11:51:16 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-18 10:02:31 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-18 12:37:08 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-17 13:11:44 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Jim Moseley" &  2008-02-17 13:55:28 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Jim Moseley" &  2008-02-17 13:58:39 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-18 09:55:17 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Jim Moseley" &  2008-02-18 10:11:22 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-18 10:32:26 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Rick Rans" <  2008-02-17 17:08:07 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Anders Jonsson"  2008-02-18 08:04:19 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-18 07:39:21 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Anders Jonsson"  2008-02-19 07:28:38 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Tom Krieg <user@[EMAIL  2008-02-19 19:40:46 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-19 10:34:13 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Dennis Santoro <RDAPre  2008-02-19 10:53:31 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-19 11:57:18 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Anders Jonsson"  2008-02-19 21:39:00 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-19 16:46:56 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Anders Jonsson"  2008-02-19 23:51:17 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-19 18:16:56 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-19 16:41:06 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Tom Krieg <user@[EMAIL  2008-02-20 10:58:59 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-19 20:00:50 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-19 19:51:49 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-19 20:52:16 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-19 20:20:30 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-19 22:26:37 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-20 10:17:19 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-20 08:26:03 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-20 10:39:09 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Rick Rans" <  2008-02-20 09:13:31 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Dennis Santoro <RDAPre  2008-02-20 11:13:50 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-20 12:00:36 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Anders Jonsson"  2008-02-20 19:35:15 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-20 14:11:56 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Anders Jonsson"  2008-02-21 08:02:18 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-20 12:21:09 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Anders Jonsson"  2008-02-21 08:09:21 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Tom Krieg <user@[EMAIL  2008-02-21 19:42:32 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-21 06:55:12 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Tony McGuire"   2008-02-21 07:23:09 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-21 10:14:37 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
"Anders Jonsson"  2008-02-20 19:31:57 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-20 14:13:20 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Dennis Santoro <RDAPre  2008-02-20 16:40:33 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Dennis Santoro <RDAPre  2008-02-18 13:02:08 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth <usenet@[EMAIL  2008-02-18 14:40:31 
Re: Same form, but one system GPFs...?
Kenneth Porter <shiva.  2008-02-15 18:39:47 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Tue Dec 2 22:25:42 CST 2008.