Record number

[Richard Kreiss]

Top post -

If memory serves me correctly:
Filepro 3.0 - 16 million records
filePro 5.N - 1 billion Records 

Here is the link to the current specifications for filepro - https://www.fptech.com/Products/fpplus.shtml

I don't think the specs have changed since 5.0

Ken or someone else can correct me if I am wrong about when the 1 billion record level was added.

Richard Kreiss
GCC Consulting

Office: 410-653-2813


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ken_wakeman at me.com [mailto:ken_wakeman at me.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 10:24 AM
> To: Kenneth Brody; filepro-list-
> bounces+ken_wakeman=me.com at lists.celestial.com; Richard Kreiss
> Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: Re: Record number
> 
> So does this mean a file ( fP 5.06 and beyond ) can have more than 100 million
> records ??
> 
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Brody <kenbrody at spamcop.net>
> Sender: filepro-list-bounces+ken_wakeman=me.com at lists.celestial.com
> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:37:20
> To: Richard Kreiss<rkreiss at gccconsulting.net>
> Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com<filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
> Subject: Re: Record number
> 
> On 9/25/2013 11:13 AM, Richard Kreiss wrote:
> > This may be a Ken question:
> >
> > A while back I seem to remember there was a discussion of the record
> number size.  For many years we were told that the record number was (8,.0).
> This record size would only allow 99,999,999 records.  After that, the record
> number would be greater than 8 digits.  So any programming that might use
> rn(8,.0) would have problems with an extremely large database.  It was
> indicated that somehow filePro could handle values larger than 8 digits for a
> record number.
> 
> If the file has more than 99,999,999 records, @RN will be (10,.0) for that file.
> 
> > What has bothered me is how the program can properly handle this unless
> @rn is used for record number up to 8 digits and somewhere else there is
> another value that contains the larger number.
> > 	1. Does @rn have a variable size based on the recode # - (8,.0) or
> (10,.0)?
> 
> Yes.  See above.
> 
> > 	2. If 1 above is true, would rn(len(@rn),Edit(@rn)) hold the correct
> value for the record number?
> 
> I don't have a file with that many records on this system, and I don't recall.  I
> believe that, if the file has more than 99,999,999 records at compile time, the
> above would create it with (10,.0).
> 
> However, is there any reason not to use "rn(10,.0)" all the time?  (Unless you
> are cramped for space on the screen/report.)
> 
> > 	3. If not,  how would one handle this if one needed to do a record #
> lookup?
> 
> It doesn't matter.  Even "rn(2,.0)" would suffice if you never needed to go
> beyond record 99.  In fact, it doesn't even need to be numeric, and "(2,*)"
> would work just as well for a record number lookup.
> 
> As mentioned above, you can always use "(10,.0)" for the definition.
> 
> --
> Kenneth Brody
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list