... Maybe you didn't know that CDXs have always had the option to open all the indexes automatically when the DBF is opened. And as I understand it, NTXs can now do that also. REQUEST DBFCDX rddsetdefault( "DBFCDX" ) SET EXCLUSIVE OFF SET(_SET_AUTOPEN, .T. ) yes I knew it but it happens ...
Maybe you didn't know that CDXs have always had the option to open all the indexes automatically when the DBF is opened. And as I understand it, NTXs can now do that also.
REQUEST DBFCDX rddsetdefault( "DBFCDX" ) SET EXCLUSIVE OFF SET(_SET_AUTOPEN, .T. )
James Bott wrote:There are reasons why CDXs are better than NTXs such as CDXs are smaller, faster, all indexes for a dbf can be placed in the same file, and you can use scopes.
There are reasons why CDXs are better than NTXs such as CDXs are smaller, faster, all indexes for a dbf can be placed in the same file, and you can use scopes. If you are interested in any of those features then it is worth upgrading.
... ADS rdd on your main .prg 2. Make ADSRDD the default RDD 3. Re-index your tables with ADSCDX or ADSNTX in case you are still using ntxs. 4. Use only ADSCDX to work with your tables. Phase #2: 1. Create an ADS Datadictionay and bind all your tables to the DD. 2. Have the user log ...
... CDX indexes. Filters ARE ALWAYS slow. Use SCOPES and INDEX. With an INDEX you can do incremental searches. Index size on CDX are way smaller than NTXs. Why ? By default they compact / compress repeating key values. For example: if you have an index key based on DTOS(dDateField) and have 1000 records ...
Hunter, The older TWBrowse had crude scope settings built-in, but that was done probably before NTXs had scoping (probably when most of us were still using Clipper). Most everyone is using CDXs now, but even NTXs have scopes under (x)Harbour so there is no need for scoping ...
Hunter, The older TWBrowse had crude scope settings built-in, but that was done probably before NTXs had scoping (probably when most of us were still using Clipper). Most everyone is using CDXs now, but even NTXs have scopes under (x)Harbour so there is no need for scoping ...
... so that all Clipper dbf operation would be carried out by the server. These were Clipper and c programmers writing mobile code. Their .dbfs and ntxs used get corrupted all the time, so they decided to do something about it. That's how ADS was born. An SQL company called iAnywhere got interested ...
... True, you may execute SQL without a DD connection and still take advantage of indexes, but that's only true with compound indexes (cdx, adi). NTXs will not be used by the SQL engine since there is no way for the sql parser to be aware of those indexes. However, provided that you do have a ...
It appears that you have not opened the indexes. Also, the error message shows that you are using NTXs not CDXs. Again I am not sure that your old version of FWH supports CDXs. When having problems like this I try to write the smallest possible code to test the problem. ...
... then I suppose it would be better to set an optimized filter (AOF -Advantage optimized filter) based on an index (CDX or ADI work better than NTXs). Here is a link that explains how to use an AOF: http://devzone.advantagedatabase.com/dz/WebHelp/Advantage9.1/advantage_concepts/advantage_functionality/advantage_optimized_filters.htm ...
... muchos años. Haciendo incapié en lo raro del comportamiento, si te fijas nunca usé el Dtos() en la busqueda DBSEEK(FI,.T. ) y siempre funcionó con NTXs, no así con CDXs. Parece que con CDX me falla solamente cuando el indice lo compone UN SOLO CAMPO y este es tipo Date, ya que los demas indices ...
NTX files can have empty spaces in their internal nodes. So different RDDs versions can modify the way the NTXs are created, and then you get different NTXs sizes.
What you have to check is that the indexes are working fine. Thats what really matter