Limit on Unlinking/Linking Records

[Ivan Smahin]

On Aug 10, 2012, at 4:44 AM, Kay C Lan wrote:

> Actually, I've tested this more and even this:
> 
> UNLINK RECORDS (26,27) OF ozC FROM RECORD (170) OF newC
> 
> results in the same error:
> 
> Kernel error: 0x21502. It's too much values.
> 
> It seems only single values are accepted.
> 
> UNLINK RECORD (26) OF ozC FROM RECORD (170) OF newC
> 
> UNLINK RECORD (27) OF ozC FROM RECORD (170) OF newC
> 
> Both of these work fine.
> 
> It's the first time I've tried to UNLINK multiple records at one time so I don't know if this ever worked, but certainly the examples on the Wiki page are misleading.
> 


There were some problems with that "multiple" (un)link statements - so there are some improvements and fixes in 5.0.

Most important changes is:

"EACH" clause must be mentioned explicitly!

1. LINK RECORD(1,2) .... WITH RECORDS(10,11).....
In case of implicit "each" idea - there is a problem - what do I mean - (1,10)(2,11) OR (1,10)(1,11)(2,10)(2,11)?

2. LINK RECORD( ... some query ...) ... WITH RECORDS( ... another query ...) ....
I don't know "cardinality" of that queries and it should not be a problem - I want to link that records strictly as I wrote - with or without "EACH".


I'm not sure about 4.9.1 but it worse to try explicit "EACH" syntax.
One more time, "EACH" means "crossing" behavior (the only valid one for not-matching size of record lists)
"NO EACH" means "corresponded" behavior.

-- 
Best regards,
Ivan Smahin
Senior Software Engineer
Paradigma Software, Inc
Valentina - The Ultra-Fast Database
http://www.valentina-db.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macserve.net/pipermail/valentina/attachments/20120810/912d19f6/attachment.html>