Re: [WebDNA] Unexpected behavior ...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2010
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 105870
interpreted = N
texte = Your code would probably ramdomize the replacement of values so it's good that we have this capability if ever we need it. Processing order is not important in my situation though, I was just expressing my surprise that it behaves the way it does, especially after Olin's discovery of a possible bug related to the number 8 the other day. Sincerely, Kenneth Grome > I don't know the answers to your Q's, but to get the randomly > edited records, as you desire, maybe you could try: > [search db=[db]&eqskudatarq=[blank]&idxsdir=ra&RandSeed=[random] > [random]&max=1] > [replacefounditems]sku=[cart][/replacefounditems] > [/search] > > As far as I can tell, the docs (or source code) never suggest(ed) > found records are found in a random manner. If they were, then why > even the need/availability of > sdir=ra&RandSeed=xxx ? > > -Govinda > > On Oct 14, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Kenneth Grome wrote: > > I wrote this script to enter a [cart] value into the sku field of > > one record at a time, then display the unsorted records remaining > > to be processed, sorted by idx which is a field autonumbered > > starting at 1001: > > > > [search db=[db]&eqskudatarq=[blank]&max=1] > > [replacefounditems]sku=[cart][/replacefounditems] > > [/search] > > > > [search db=[db]&eqskudatarq=[blank]&rank=off] > > [founditems][idx]
[/founditems] > > [/search] > > > > What I observed when looking at the idx values displayed by the > > second search results is that records were not being processed in > > a random order. Instead this is what I observed when there were > > 27 records in the db: > > > > First all the records from 1019 to 1027 were replaced in an > > apparently random manner. Then all the records from 1009 to 1018 > > were replaced, randomly. Ffinally all the records from 1001 to > > 1008 were replaced randomly. > > > > This makes me think that there's something unusual about the > > number 8 as the ending digit in the idx field. > > > > Instead of records being replaces randomly throughout the entire > > set of resulting matches as I expected, records were replaced in > > "subsets" ... where each subset contained the values starting > > with the highest idx value currently in the db and decreasing > > until an idx value ending in "8" was encountered. > > > > Even though I was not forcing webdna to replace these records > > randomly, I still thought they would be replaced randomly since I > > didn't use any sort parameters in the first search. And they did > > appear to be replaced randomly WITHIN EACH SUBSET -- but I cannot > > understand why webdna behaved like this. > > > > Coincidentally a few days ago Olin noted an unusual occurrence > > related to the number "8", and I think his discovery may be > > related to this one. > > > > I wouldn't exactly call this a bug, but it certainly is not what > > I expected, and since I've never run into this type of thing > > before I'm hoping that someone can explain why webdna replaces > > the found items in subsets like this, where the smallest number > > in the subset is 8, before proceeding to the next subset. > > > > ??? > > ------------ > Govinda > govinda(DOT)webdnatalk(AT)gmail(DOT)com > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list
. > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Your code would probably ramdomize the replacement of values so it's good that we have this capability if ever we need it. Processing order is not important in my situation though, I was just expressing my surprise that it behaves the way it does, especially after Olin's discovery of a possible bug related to the number 8 the other day. Sincerely, Kenneth Grome > I don't know the answers to your Q's, but to get the randomly > edited records, as you desire, maybe you could try: > [search db=[db]&eqskudatarq=[blank]&idxsdir=ra&RandSeed=[random] > [random]&max=1] > [replacefounditems]sku=[cart][/replacefounditems] > [/search] > > As far as I can tell, the docs (or source code) never suggest(ed) > found records are found in a random manner. If they were, then why > even the need/availability of > sdir=ra&RandSeed=xxx ? > > -Govinda > > On Oct 14, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Kenneth Grome wrote: > > I wrote this script to enter a [cart] value into the sku field of > > one record at a time, then display the unsorted records remaining > > to be processed, sorted by idx which is a field autonumbered > > starting at 1001: > > > > [search db=[db]&eqskudatarq=[blank]&max=1] > > [replacefounditems]sku=[cart][/replacefounditems] > > [/search] > > > > [search db=[db]&eqskudatarq=[blank]&rank=off] > > [founditems][idx]
[/founditems] > > [/search] > > > > What I observed when looking at the idx values displayed by the > > second search results is that records were not being processed in > > a random order. Instead this is what I observed when there were > > 27 records in the db: > > > > First all the records from 1019 to 1027 were replaced in an > > apparently random manner. Then all the records from 1009 to 1018 > > were replaced, randomly. Ffinally all the records from 1001 to > > 1008 were replaced randomly. > > > > This makes me think that there's something unusual about the > > number 8 as the ending digit in the idx field. > > > > Instead of records being replaces randomly throughout the entire > > set of resulting matches as I expected, records were replaced in > > "subsets" ... where each subset contained the values starting > > with the highest idx value currently in the db and decreasing > > until an idx value ending in "8" was encountered. > > > > Even though I was not forcing webdna to replace these records > > randomly, I still thought they would be replaced randomly since I > > didn't use any sort parameters in the first search. And they did > > appear to be replaced randomly WITHIN EACH SUBSET -- but I cannot > > understand why webdna behaved like this. > > > > Coincidentally a few days ago Olin noted an unusual occurrence > > related to the number "8", and I think his discovery may be > > related to this one. > > > > I wouldn't exactly call this a bug, but it certainly is not what > > I expected, and since I've never run into this type of thing > > before I'm hoping that someone can explain why webdna replaces > > the found items in subsets like this, where the smallest number > > in the subset is 8, before proceeding to the next subset. > > > > ??? > > ------------ > Govinda > govinda(DOT)webdnatalk(AT)gmail(DOT)com > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us
Kenneth Grome
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Re:Navigator 4.01 (1997)
Server Freeze (1998)
[Summary] re: Emailer setup (1997)
Summing fields (1997)
Version f1 status (1997)
Limit picture size on upload (2005)
OH MY GOD! (1998)
PCS Frames (1997)
Bug Report, maybe (1997)
[WebDNA] WebDNA used in US Government work? (2013)
Credit card processing - UK (1997)
For those of you not on the WebCatalog Beta... (1997)
Protect and Serve (1999)
WebCatalog + Linux + ODBC + Oracle ! ? (2000)
WCS Newbie question (1997)
SiteEdit Pro Update Announcement (1997)
Still trying to email... (1998)
OT: SSL Certs (2005)
[WebDNA] Ajax, JS and WebDNA - A joint toturial ;-) (2010)
[WebDNA] Is WebDNA slowing things up - please try these URL's (2013)