Subject RE: [IBO] Update and IB_DSQL what am I doing wrong?
Author Jason Wharton
My suggestion is to use the SQL trace monitor to carefully examine exactly
what is being sent to the server. You may find some clues there.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: []On
> Behalf Of Chuck Belanger
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:29 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [IBO] Update and IB_DSQL what am I doing wrong?
> Thanks, Alan:
> Like I said maybe I'm missing something very basic, so I
> don't mind at all.
> What I mean is that I'm updating, i.e. changing a single
> small int field
> on a single record with a specific PK. Then I do that again,
> through a
> user initiated event--a popup menu click-- to another single record,
> with a completely different PK and the first record loses it changes,
> but the second (assuming I don't do a 3rd record update) remains. My
> question is how do I keep that first record changed, then apply (i.e.
> reissue an update for another record) the second change, and so on?
> The various usual methods are not working. What I finally found that
> kind of works (although still not acceptable) is to have the
> user select
> all items (tree nodes) first then apply a looped batch update for all
> items. The first time of applying this batch, it "holds", all
> successive
> batch updates seem to miss a single item, and in a batch
> update it looks
> like its consistently the LAST item updated which is missed, which is
> opposite to doing single updates, serially, in which the LAST
> item remains.
> What I find scary about this is how many other places in my
> code is this
> happening, too, and I just never looked close enough at the
> data to see it?
> Finally, it doesn't matter what method I use to "Update", the
> result is
> the same. (e.g. using a SELECT, EDIT, POST sequence).
> Thanks, I appreciate any help.
> Chuck
> Alan McDonald wrote:
> > Forgive me for butting in Chuck.
> > You say "only the last update actually takes"
> > I have to query the use of language here....
> > Obviously an update statement overwrites previous
> updates.... So the last
> > update is always the only one to remain "visible"
> > Can you comment on this observation please?
> > Alan