The WHERE clause was something to count but I don't think it was optimizable because no index based on it.  (Vague recollection; not 100% sure.)

SET MULTILOCKS is ON.


On 10/22/2020 3:36 PM, Richard Kaye wrote:
True.  My next guess is it's using the index because your WHERE clause is 
Rushmore optimized. So it still doesn't need to move the record pointer in the 
source table. And I'll return to how your environment is setup. I'd have to go 
read the fine docs to understand why moving the record pointer is also trying 
to lock the row. Do you have SET MULTILOCKS ON?

--

rk

-----Original Message-----
From: ProfoxTech <profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com> On Behalf Of Richard Kaye
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 3:28 PM
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Subject: RE: COUNT FOR hangs on record locking, but SQL - SELECT COUNT(*) works 
with no issue. Why?

Leaving aside  the environment stuff like SET EXCLUSIVE and SET MULTILOCKS, my 
first guess is COUNT FOR actually moves the record pointer through every  row 
in the table, Whereas SELECT COUNT() is reading the header.

--

rk

-----Original Message-----
From: ProfoxTech <profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com> On Behalf Of MB Software 
Solutions, LLC
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 3:24 PM
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Subject: COUNT FOR hangs on record locking, but SQL - SELECT COUNT(*) works 
with no issue. Why?

VFP9SP3

Why would a COUNT FOR hang ("Attempting to lock") whereas my easy workaround is SELECT 
COUNT(*) FROM SomeCursor WHERE  <<yada yada yada>>   ??

tia,
--Mike


[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: https://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: https://leafe.com/archives
This message: 
https://leafe.com/archives/byMID/fb34194e-1588-b0d3-6f56-039788741...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to