Higher table level needed

[Lewy]

Hi,

I have read and followed the thread previously posted on Pdox8 tables reverting to Pdox4 to no avail. I have just had a problem occur with a table I have been using for some time whereby the lookup tables have become un-linked. By trying to restructure the table I keep getting the error message "a higher table level is required". I have tried the suggestions previously given, but Pdox7 won't let me restructure. All the tables inc lookups are now in Pdox5 format, but still the error persists.

Any suggestions would be gratefully received as the backlog of paperwork is about to engulf me!!

Many thanks,

Paul Lewis

 

[footpad]

Lewy,

Seeing how no one's answered yet, I'm going to take a guess. The comment regarding your linkages breaking suggests that either your indexes have become corrupted or your table has.

Start by deleting and then re-creating your indexes (.px, .x??, .y?? files). If that doesn't resolve the situation, then use Tools | Utilities | Table Repair to see if your tables are damaged. If so, repair them. that should resolve the problem.

Hope this helps...

-- Lance

 

[Lewy]

Hi Lance,

Thanks for your reply, I tried waht you suggested to no avail!

Perhaps if I expand on the problem a bit more it might give you a better idea of what is wrong.(is it me or is Pdox7 very unstable? It seems to hang very easily)

I have a fairly standard Master table detailing clients name address etc, each with a key field identifier(Intger field), linked to this master table are two simple look up & fill tables, with two fields, an abreviationa and fill in, the abv field is keyed. All 3 tables are in Pdox5 format ( that's what it states in Info-restructure mode). I appear to get 1 error message when trying to define the tables as lookups, which is "this lookup table has a different language driver which may cause some fields to be missing". When I try to save the table I get the message "A higher level table is required ".

I have tried writing the tables from scratch, all in Pdox7 format and then tried to 'Add' the records(some 4600 altogether) into the new master table from the original but al I get are about 46 copied across, all the rest are in a key violation table.

If you are able to help I shall be very happy as I don't fancy typing in 4600 records again.....

Many thanks,

Paul Lewis

 

[JoeNg]

I believe the problem is the tables are created using different versions of Pdox.
Here is the test I have used.

Table Pdox Used Format Info Structure
T1.DB Pdox 9 Pdox 5 Pdox 4
T2.DB Pdox 7 Pdox 5 Pdox 4

I have created 2 tables, T1.DB was created in Pdox 9 and T2.DB was created in Pdox 7 (16-bit).

When using Info Structure, Pdox 7 & 9 reports Pdox 4 format for T2.DB and Pdox 5 for T1.DB , even though, when I create both of them using Pdox 5 as format.

Add T2.DB as look up table to T1.DB using Pdox 7, I got the “this lookup table has a different language driver which may cause some fields to be missing" error message. If I do the same in Pdox 9, this is not a problem.

Based on this test, I cannot use T1.DB in Pdox 7 and connect T2.DB as lookup table. In other word, I cannot use a table created in a higher version of Pdox and use it in a lower version of Pdox.

So, I think the fix to this problem is to create all the tables using 1 version of Pdox and stick with that version.

As to key violation, export the data out to a text file and import them back. Do check to make sure there are unique keys in the table.

 

[Lewy]

Thanks Guys,

I have now sorted the tables out, the problem appeared to be that I had no BDE administration file, I was using the BDE confg file in error, once I copied the admin files across the network and followed your advice, bingo!

Many thanks

Paul

 

[footpad]

Lewy,

Ah, yes. When there's no CFG file, BDE uses internal defaults. The default table level is 4.

Since you're using a 16-bit version of Paradox, be sure you've saved your CFG file with Windows 3.1 and Windows NT option checked under the Save for use With setting in the Object | options dialog of the BDE Administrator.

Hope this helps...

-- Lance

 

[Lewy]

Thanks for the help Lance, I was under the impression that I was running Pdox7 as 32 bit, as there was an extra BDE install specific for Windows 32 platform. Would it be worth upgrading to Version 9 or 10 seeing how buggy 7 seems to be. (or is it just my crap programming?)

 

[footpad]

Lewy,

Check the About box for Paradox 7. If it says "Paradox 7 for Windows 3.1 and Windows for Workgroups," that's the 16-bit version (or Paradox 7.16, as I like to call it). If it says "Paradox 7 for Windows 95/NT," then it's Paradox 7.32.

As far as upgrading, well, it sort of depends on which Paradox 7 you have, whether or not you've applied the appropriate patches, and a few other things.

Both versions of Paradox 7 had patches released, though the 32-bit version had more extensives ones. The Paradox 7.32 patch can be found at ftp://ftp.corel.com/pub/Paradox/PdoxWin/PDX7UPD4.EXE.

The Paradox 7.16 patch was not widely distributed and was also limited to a specific change in the handling of forms. I think I have a copy in my archives somewhere, though I'll need to dig it out. Let me know if you need it.

While Corel has definitely added some needed features since taking over the product, they've mostly been focused on other things, such as bug fixes, changing the code base for the same compiler used to create the other packages in the suite, and so on.

The biggest argument to upgrade to Paradox 10, beyond the fixes to report handling, is the inclusion of Runtime and the distribution license. If you plan to give copies of your applications to other users, that's a very compelling reason to upgrade.

On the other hand, you might keep Paradox 7 around for specific tasks. For example, I personally don't like way the new Table Create/Restructure dialog handles keystrokes and index definitions. So I create my tables in Paradox 7 and then create the application in whatever version my client it using. (I have six versions of Paradox installed; go figure.)

Hope this helps...

-- Lance