Sign up on the Revelation Software website to have access to the most current content, and to be able to ask questions and get answers from the Revelation community

At 16 NOV 1998 08:26:04PM G. Brooks wrote:

How, in arev 2.x, would I be able to tell what fields have

btree or xref on them?

I have a program that needs updating and some of the source

is missing so I need to rewrite it. In the (original which I did not work on) program it does a index.flush(filename,"") and later a btree.extract.

??


At 17 NOV 1998 01:25AM J.Shaefer wrote:

Have you tried !filename ? I've only worked with 3.1 so I'm not sure that this exists in 2.x versions. Also, is there a "listindex" command in the voc ?


At 17 NOV 1998 09:03AM Mike Ruane, WinWin Solutions Inc. wrote:

G Brooks-

Try Typing

LISTINDEX filename

at TCL. This should give you a list of all indexed fields and their types (Btree, Xref, Relational.)

Mike Ruane

WinWin Solutions Inc.


At 17 NOV 1998 01:53PM Victor Engel wrote:

First off, the way an Xref index is implemented is by first creating a symbolic field whose name ends in _XREF and then putting a btree index on that.

Programmatically, you can check several places. Some of the Arev tools check one place and others check elsewhere, which can be a source of frustration if indexes get out of kilter. Perhaps the easiest is to check the *INDEXES record of the !filename file, where "filename" is the name of the file you're interested in.

You can also check the record %FIELDS% in the dictionary. On field 3 of this record is a list of field names. On field 6 is a flag indicating if there is a btree index.

You can also check the field itself. If the field is indexed, it will have a 1 in field 26 of the dictionary. I think this one may have moved between Arev versions.


At 18 NOV 1998 09:35AM Larry WIlson wrote:

Victor,

As you may recall, _XREF was .XREF until 3.x AREV; this may, or may not make a difference if he sets it up manually.

At 18 NOV 1998 11:33AM Victor Engel wrote:

You are correct, of course. For some reason I read 2.X as 3.X in the original post.

View this thread on the forum...

  • third_party_content/community/commentary/forums_nonworks/fd1c9d7e67889da7852566bf0007e188.txt
  • Last modified: 2023/12/28 07:40
  • by 127.0.0.1