TimStone wrote:I have a datafile that I use for "parts used on invoices".
For quick filterning, I use SetScope functions. ( top and bottom ). It uses the invoice number as the value for both. Thus when the invoice is open, only those parts used for that specific one will display in the xBrowse control. It all works perfectly.
Now I have a client who wants that same ability, but he wants to have the numbers "searchable" which would be accomplished by placing them in partnumber order.
Does anyone have a suggestion on how to do this without messing up the scope ?
Tim
When we are using SetScope(), we can not change the index order. That is our constraint now.
There are quite a few alternatives, including reading into an array, etc. but they reduce overall speeds and also require major changes.
We need to look for simpler solutions
without much change in our existing software.
1. Use Filter instead of Scope:
I am sure you will not like this idea at all.
Most of us are brain-washed to believe that filters are very very slow.
Not so.
Situation changed 3 decades back when FoxPro introduced Rushmore technology and our present DBFCDX uses similar technology to optimize filters.
Since we already have and index on the field "INVOICE",
is highly optimized.
That means we can use filters instead of Scopes to limit visibility of parts table pertaining to an invoice using filters also.
Once we use filters instead of scopes, we can change the index order of the parts browse to any indexed column and do seeks.
Note: Filters are still a bit slower than Scopes though the difference in speeds may not be perceptible.
2. Continue using scopes
(a) Use compound index "INVOICE+PARTNUMBER" instead of "INVOICE"
Still SetScope on invoice number works the same way even with this compound index.
At the same time, within the browse partnumbers appear in the ascending order.
When you want to search a part number, seek "INCVOICE" + "PARTNUMBER". We can do incremental search also.
(b) Continue your same program as it is. Instead of SEEK, use LOCATE to search the part number. I can assure that this also will be fast enough
You may consider options 2(b), 2(a), 1 in that order.
Please feel free to ask if you like us to support you with a sample program in any of these alternatives.
