🚀 go-pugleaf

John

I have had the same problem with joining two tables. Unfortunly I have not
had time to play with it and finally just used two select commands using
the key from the first. I will go back and play with it later. One thing I
might suggest is down load a copy of TI2718 ( Using Local SQL in dBase For
Windows) from the support page of Borland Online (TI stands for Tech Info).
It gives some examples, but it uses the SQLEXEC() function. I have found it
helpful. Oh, don't know if you realize, but SQL does not need keyed fields
to work. It works faster with keys, but they are not required. Hope this
helps.

Joe

John Carnahan <102672.2072@COMPUSERVE.COM> wrote in article
<3464A119.476D@COMPUSERVE.COM>...
> Joe Yuzamas wrote:
> > 
> > Greg
> > 
> > What I am saying is I do not have a DBMS. I use DBF tables located on
my
> > server. The server is connect through a T1 line with ethernet. I use
Local
> > SQL commands in my VDB apps to retreive data from the server with that
type
> > of response. All that is needed is to define a database alias in the
BDE
> > and map the server with directory in Explorer where the data resides on
the
> > server. When the app starts, simply open the database alias and you
have
> > access. No, do not abandan your indexs. SQL will use the indexs if they
are
> > available and retrieve data faster, but they are not required. As for
> > relations, that is acomplished through the SQL select command or you
can
> > build a QBE that has SQL in it for views. Yes, I think you would get
better
> > preformance and some enhancments by using a DBMS, but this is much
cheaper
> > (I work for a cheap company, but you couldn't tell it when you pay your
> > taxes). The biggest problem is, there has never been much documentation
on
> > VDB and SQL. Most of what I have learned has been the hard way.
> > 
> > Joe
> > 
> > Greg Hill <ghill@n2.net> wrote in article <3460BF14.5C0E@n2.net>...
> > > Joe Yuzamas wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Greg
> > > >
> > > > I changed from dBase DML to SQL about three months ago. If you plan
to
> > > > update to version 7.0, I strongly suggest you start using it. To
make a
> > > > long story short, we have four file servers on our LAN which is a
part
> > of
> > > > the base WAN. Each of these servers are running Windows NT server
as an
> > OS.
> > > > We do have MS SQL running on some of them, but I do not recommend
it.
> > It
> > > > requires a administration to constantly monitor it. NT requires a
user
> > > > license for each user, but I don't think it cost much for each
license.
> > I
> > > > use what Borland refers to as Local SQL from my apps. This means
there
> > is
> > > > NO DBMS (MS SQL, Ect.). The tables are DBF format. Basically they
look
> > like
> > > > an extention of my local drive, but are shared by many. File I/O is
> > handled
> > > > by the BDE and works as described in these threads. One app I have
> > written
> > > > is a read only report generator. It uses a single table with about
> > 600,000
> > > > records (and is growing at 10,000 records per month). Using SQL I
can
> > > > generate a monthly report which consist of scanning these records
and
> > doing
> > > > some heavy calculations in about 1.5 min. Another app has an input
form
> > > > with some 30 fields to add or update and takes only milliseconds to
> > update.
> > > > The only problem I found was, SQL under 5.6 does not support MEMO
> > fields.
> > > > Oh, one thing we are running Ethernet LAN. Even though 5.6 only
> > supports a
> > > > subset of SQL 92, I would never return to DML. Once you get use to
it
> > > > (there is little documentation), it is simple. Hope this will help.
> > > >
> > > > Joe
> > > > Joe, I'm not sure that I understand what you are suggesting.  Are
you
> > > saying that I do not need to use a Database Server at all??
> > >
> > > If that is what you are saying then I think I understand what you
mean
> > > but I wouldn't think that It could be that fast or the solution for
the
> > > kind of activity that I will be doing.  You are suggestion that I
just
> > > re code the app so that it uses the Local SQL command set and abandon
> > > the indexes/relationships currently being used.  I'm not sure how
easy
> > > that would be or if it will cause me limitations in the power.
> > >
> > > Yes I'm going to upgrade to 7.0.  Are you suggesting using Local SQL
> > > because that is the syntax used for handling the data in 7.0??
> > >
> > > Please confirm.
> > >
> > > Thanks for you help, Greg
> > >
> 
> Joe,
>   I'm doing something similar to your approach, and am learning the
> SQL syntax the hard way to.  Any SQL syntax you may have would be
> greatly appreciated.  Joins...More than two tables?  The one I'm
> having problems with right now is joing two tables, each has it's
> own set of indexes.  I want to use the index from the first table
> after retrieving the answer set, but I can only get the indexes
> from the second table in the answer set.  I've tried revering the
> order of the fields and files but to not avail.
> John
>