FiveTech Software tech support forums

... Both LASTREC() and RECCOUNT() include deleted records also. ORDKEYCOUNT() also does not exclude deleted records by itself, but honors filters, scopes and index expressions. So, 1) SET FILTER TO !DELETED()? OrdKeyCount() 2) INDEX ON RECNO() TAG RECS FOR !DELETED() ...

... Both LASTREC() and RECCOUNT() include deleted records also. ORDKEYCOUNT() also does not exclude deleted records by itself, but honors filters, scopes and index expressions. So, 1) SET FILTER TO !DELETED()? OrdKeyCount() 2) INDEX ON RECNO() TAG RECS FOR !DELETED() ...

... Both LASTREC() and RECCOUNT() include deleted records also. ORDKEYCOUNT() also does not exclude deleted records by itself, but honors filters, scopes and index expressions. So, 1) SET FILTER TO !DELETED()? OrdKeyCount() 2) INDEX ON RECNO() TAG RECS FOR !DELETED() ...

... filtering. This helps us to GET some value and it is for us to do whatever with that Value, whether we use for filter or for seek or for setting scopes or for whatever purpose. Do not underestimate filters. Scope has limited scope. What I mean is scopes are not useful for every occassion. Most ...

... filtering. This helps us to GET some value and it is for us to do whatever with that Value, whether we use for filter or for seek or for setting scopes or for whatever purpose. Do not underestimate filters. Scope has limited scope. What I mean is scopes are not useful for every occassion. Most ...

Antonio Linares wrote:Dear Silvio,

SET FILTER is very slow

Using an index with scopes should be better

with tdatabase I not Know How make it


IF nCount > 0
nInit:=oDbf:lastrec()-nCount
nEnd:= oDbf:lastrec()
ENDIF

oDbf:setscope(0,nInit)
oDbf:setscope(1,nEnd)


then for the year ?

Dear Silvio,

SET FILTER is very slow

Using an index with scopes should be better

Due to several post, I indeed started to use Scopes a lot more, and they are pretty fast.. In this case, it is the bBargetAction that i'm looking into. Since Mr. Rao made it possible to use a function of ourselves, maybe there I have to changes ...

James

You are correct that scopes are faster for DBFCDX .. filters are even faster in Sql ...

Rick Lipkin

Marc, There have been a number of recent forum discussions about filters vs scopes. The basics are that with a filter you have to read every record in the database, but with a scope you only read the records within the scope. For example, you are using a browse ...

... of the field ? Yes, but I would do this: Save the current recno() If they exist, save the database's state (current index and the top and bottom scopes and the current recordNo()). set the index and scopes you need to use. Do a gotop(). Do whatever... Then at the end of the routine, restore the ...

... - Time for filter 23.13 seconds - Time for scope 0.32 seconds Thus filtering took 23.13 / 0.32 = 72 times longer than a scope. And the winner is, scopes!

If any of you are using filters this will be incredibly slow over a network. You need to use scopes instead.

Also, as someone else mentioned, you need to open only the databases needed for the routine, then close them when done.

... con muy buenos resultados con tablas chicas, con tablas mas grandes se pone muy lento y con los indices CDX he tenido resultados erraticos usando Scopes y Filters (por ahi soy yo que comento algun error), vi el LetoDbf y veo que tiene mas funciones agregadas voy a probarlo a ver que pasa pero ...

... la red, o con la aplicacion en si misma. Quizas el problema surge porque estoy ejecutando el codeblock del bchange de xbrowse y alli utiliza scopes... si se les ha presentado este error y me pueden ayudar se los agredecere. Applicación =========== Path and name: Y:\winfar64.exe (32 bits) ...