Relational Index difference between Arev and OI (OpenInsight 32-Bit) [Revelation On-Line Wiki]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
{{tag>category:"OpenInsight 32-Bit" author:"John Bouley" author:"The Sprezzatura Group"}}

[[https://www.revelation.com/the-works|Join The Works program to have access to the most current content, and to be able to ask questions and get answers from Revelation staff and the Revelation community]]


==== Relational Index difference between Arev and OI (OpenInsight 32-Bit) ====
=== At 04 JAN 2005 04:52:09PM John Bouley wrote: ===
 
 
<QUOTE>
Can anyone confirm this or not.

In AREV I have a record lock on a header record. I can create detail records that have a Relational that stores the keys into the header. In AREV even though I have the lock the index is updated when the detail is written.



In OI it appears to go into the !file queue for later indexing??



Thanks,

John Bouley
</QUOTE>
----

=== At 07 JAN 2005 03:28AM The Sprezzatura Group wrote:  ===

<QUOTE>On the system I just tested on (4.13), the relational update is processed even though I had the record locked.





The Sprezzatura Group

[i]World Leaders in all things RevSoft[/i]

[img]http://www.sprezzatura.com/zz.gif[/img]

</QUOTE>

----

=== At 07 JAN 2005 09:40AM John Bouley wrote:  ===

<QUOTE>Weird,



I am in 7.01 and the record did not update. I did howerver issue an Update_Index and even though I have the lock the index did flush?



I also have noticed with 7.01 other indexing issues. I wrote my own Index routines that cycle through all of the Index tables and issue an Update_Index(table,''). When users are in and have record locks in the Header table the process freezes sometimes for over 1 hour waiting for the lock to be freed. OpenInsight's indexer doesn't seem to exhibit this behavior. I wonder if it is because OI is using index.flush instead of Update_index??



Thanks,

John

</QUOTE>

----

=== At 10 JAN 2005 04:13AM The Sprezzatura Group wrote:  ===

<QUOTE>If memory isn't suffering some parity error, and judging by the object code of UPDATE_INDEX, this looks to basically just be a shell around INDEX.FLUSH.



Have you tried this on 7.1?



The Sprezzatura Group

[i]World Leaders in all things RevSoft[/i]

[img]http://www.sprezzatura.com/zz.gif[/img]

</QUOTE>


[[https://www.revelation.com/revweb/oecgi4p.php/O4W_HANDOFF?DESTN=O4W_RUN_FORM&INQID=WORKS_READ&SUMMARY=1&KEY=DCBFAA4F04C0F54185256F7F007821D8|View this thread on the Works forum...]]