I could have sworn I saw a post from Ed on "SET ORDER TO TO" in VFP7 and how
to fix it but I can't find it in the archive.
This is a real PITA if you are a good typist.
Mr. Jerry Cotton, MCP
PBL-LSS Development Manager
112 Realini Drive
Havelock NC, 28533
mailto:cottonjp@2mawcp.usmc.mil
(252)466-4854 (w) (252)229-0628 (c)
Cotton Jerry P wrote:
> I could have sworn I saw a post from Ed on "SET ORDER TO TO" in VFP7 and how
> to fix it but I can't find it in the archive.
>
> This is a real PITA if you are a good typist.
Go to the Tools/Intellisense Manager menu, and go to the 'Advanced' tab.
Select 'lEnableFullSetDisplay' from the list, and type 'F' in the value
box. This will suppress the 'TO' in any SET command.
___/
/
__/
/
____/
Ed Leafe
I knew I saw that somewhere before.
Thanks Ed.
Mr. Jerry Cotton, MCP
PBL-LSS Development Manager
112 Realini Drive
Havelock NC, 28533
mailto:cottonjp@2mawcp.usmc.mil
(252)466-4854 (w) (252)229-0628 (c)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Leafe [mailto:ed@leafe.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 1:02 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of ProFox
> Subject: Re: VFP7 Set order to to
>
>
> Cotton Jerry P wrote:
>
> > I could have sworn I saw a post from Ed on "SET ORDER TO
> TO" in VFP7 and how
> > to fix it but I can't find it in the archive.
> >
> > This is a real PITA if you are a good typist.
>
> Go to the Tools/Intellisense Manager menu, and go to
> the 'Advanced' tab.
> Select 'lEnableFullSetDisplay' from the list, and type 'F' in
> the value
> box. This will suppress the 'TO' in any SET command.
>
>
> ___/
> /
> __/
> /
> ____/
> Ed Leafe
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Subscription maintenance at:
> http://leafe.com/mailListMaint.html
>
>
>
Author: Derek Kalweit
Posted: 2005-12-02 12:07:09 Link
Hello. Another developer here just tracked down a bug that is
caused by set("order") returning a full "TAG blah OF c:\blah\blah with
spaces\blah.cdx" instead of just a "TAG blah", as was set with the
original "set order to" command. This is disasterous when you save off
the order, "set order to" to increase data handling performance, and
then try to set it back-- VFP doesn't know how to parse the spaces in
the path(and VFP doesn't quote it from Set("order")), and bombs. I'm
assuming we can parse the output to make it work, but hasn't this been
found before? Anyone have a better work-around? Thanks.
--
Derek
Author: Dan Olsson
Posted: 2005-12-02 12:43:33 Link
At 2005-12-02 18:07, you wrote:
> Hello. Another developer here just tracked down a bug that is
>caused by set("order") returning a full "TAG blah OF c:\blah\blah with
>spaces\blah.cdx" instead of just a "TAG blah", as was set with the
>original "set order to" command. This is disasterous when you save off
>the order, "set order to" to increase data handling performance, and
>then try to set it back-- VFP doesn't know how to parse the spaces in
>the path(and VFP doesn't quote it from Set("order")), and bombs. I'm
>assuming we can parse the output to make it work, but hasn't this been
>found before? Anyone have a better work-around? Thanks.
Save the numeric value of ORDER() instead.
******************************
* Dan Olsson
* <mailto:dan@dolittle.se>
Author: Charlie Coleman
Posted: 2005-12-02 13:05:44 Link
At 12:07 PM 12/2/2005 -0500, Derek Kalweit wrote:
> Hello. Another developer here just tracked down a bug that is
>caused by set("order") returning a full "TAG blah OF c:\blah\blah with
>spaces\blah.cdx" instead of just a "TAG blah", as was set with the
...
>the order, "set order to" to increase data handling performance, and
>then try to set it back-- VFP doesn't know how to parse the spaces in
...
I think you want to use the ORDER() function instead of the SET("ORDER") call.
-Charlie
Author: Derek Kalweit
Posted: 2005-12-02 13:33:00 Link
> > Hello. Another developer here just tracked down a bug that is
> >caused by set("order") returning a full "TAG blah OF c:\blah\blah with
> >spaces\blah.cdx" instead of just a "TAG blah", as was set with the
> >the order, "set order to" to increase data handling performance, and
> >then try to set it back-- VFP doesn't know how to parse the spaces in
> I think you want to use the ORDER() function instead of the SET("ORDER") call.
Thank you Charlie and Dan. I guess that code was written when used to
calling SET() for all the other settings that had to be set back.
Thank god for consistency............
--
Derek
Author: Michael J. Babcock, MCP
Posted: 2007-09-11 11:24:53 Link
I'm finding code where the developer had done a SET ORDER TO and then SEEK
command afterwards instead of using the SEEK(a,b,c) function with its
parts. I'm not sure when the SEEK(a,b,c) function came to be, so perhaps
this is because it was written prior to that?
IAC, I thought I had heard that doing a SET ORDER TO on a network table
was slow or caused a performance hit, especially since all we want to do
is use the index to check for the existence of a condition that could
nowadays be done with the SEEK(a,b,c) function. While refactoring, should
this be done (...replacing the old SET ORDER plus SEEK command with the
SEEK function instead)?
Just curious...tia!
--Michael
On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Michael J. Babcock, MCP wrote:
> IAC, I thought I had heard that doing a SET ORDER TO on a network
> table
> was slow or caused a performance hit, especially since all we want
> to do
> is use the index to check for the existence of a condition that could
> nowadays be done with the SEEK(a,b,c) function. While refactoring,
> should
> this be done (...replacing the old SET ORDER plus SEEK command with
> the
> SEEK function instead)?
You should know the answer by now: test both versions under actual
network conditions. There is a good chance that the current code is
not noticeably slower than the proposed new code; if so, you've just
saved a bunch of rewriting.
-- Ed Leafe
> > IAC, I thought I had heard that doing a SET ORDER TO on a network
> > table
> > was slow or caused a performance hit, especially since all we want
> > to do
> > is use the index to check for the existence of a condition that could
> > nowadays be done with the SEEK(a,b,c) function. While refactoring,
> > should
> > this be done (...replacing the old SET ORDER plus SEEK command with
> > the SEEK function instead)?
> You should know the answer by now: test both versions under actual
> network conditions. There is a good chance that the current code is
> not noticeably slower than the proposed new code; if so, you've just
> saved a bunch of rewriting.
Generally, with many files(some big, some small), I've noticed
considerable 'scan' speed increases by removing any orders set on the
cursor with 'set order to'.
I personally doubt there would be a significant speed difference
between SEEK() and SET ORDER TO...SEEK itself, but if the ORDER is
left set on the file and subsequent record pointer changes are done,
it could slow things down-- but be very careful about removing the SET
ORDER TO's, as that order could be critical to the logic of the code
itself...
--
Derek