[Dxbase] SOLUTION --- RE: Record count in initialize tables lower than last record number in log

Thu Feb 10 19:15:33 EST 2011

OK Hank -- I am going to send this response to the reflector also -- so that
other users will see what was causing the difference in the  initialize stats
"records read" versus your last qso number 

YOU HAVE 52 QSOs with the OPRCALL of  N6RO  -- but, you DO NOT
have N6RO in your  Registration file that you rcvd from Neal  or Jack !!

These 52  OPRCALL  N6RO  QSOs are from  2011-01-25 thru 2011-01-28 ...

Just ask Neal for an updated  REG file that includes both   KF2O  and  N6RO   ..

Hank - FYI - I will be sending you those updated refdata and logbook mdb files
(zipped-up) in a little bit -- via separate email ..

73 Joe wa6axe

To: wa6axe at hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Dxbase] Record count in initialize tables lower than last record number in log
From: hankkier at aol.com
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:51:15 -0500

btw, any idea what caused the difference in # of records?

-----Original Message-----

From: Joe WA6AXE <wa6axe at hotmail.com>

To: hankkier <hankkier at aol.com>

Sent: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 6:46 pm

Subject: RE: [Dxbase] Record count in initialize tables lower than last record number in log

OK - Hank -- send me YOUR Refdata.mdb file (Zipped-up) and let's get you 

uptodate -- I will make all changes here and email you back a MATCH good set

of new Refdata and new Logbook mdb files --- 

joe

To: wa6axe at hotmail.com

Subject: Re: [Dxbase] Record count in initialize tables lower than last record number in log

From: hankkier at aol.com

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:42:16 -0500

thanks info Joe

- you got the same record counts I did 88209 and 88261. that's the difference that concerned me. so we are on the same page there.

- re prefixes, never took the trouble to change. just remapped as necessary, since still get the same results in the end and I was concerned that I might screw up something in the process. however, I am not opposed to fixing it, and that would be good in the long run because next time there is a new DXBase update I probably would be forced to anyway (and it is more correct too).

- fyi, on 10/10/10 prefixes I did that process manually and as far as I can tell successfully.

Hank

-----Original Message-----

From: Joe WA6AXE <wa6axe at hotmail.com>

To: hankkier <hankkier at aol.com>

Sent: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 6:29 pm

Subject: RE: [Dxbase] Record count in initialize tables lower than last record number in log

Hank,

BIG question for ya!!  Why have you not updated your country/entity prefixes in your

DXbase2007 yet??

Is there a reason ??   When I did the initialize stats -- The routine barf'ed because

my refdata and logbook are up-to-date .. but, you are STILL

running with  PREFIXES like  YU6 - T9 - ZK/N - ZK/S ,,,, etc etc 

When I finished going thru the initialize routine I get a count of    88209  out of   88261

records read ...

The only question -- and I am not done yet with your logbook -- is ----

DO YOU WANT to update your refdata and logbook to the newest prefixes that DXbase is

running with ???

Joe

To: wa6axe at hotmail.com

Subject: Re: [Dxbase] Record count in initialize tables lower than last record number in log

From: hankkier at aol.com

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:07:04 -0500

yes I was just grasping at straws trying to identify where the problem was...seemed logical (?) that the various counts should yield the same total. 

anyway, here is the zip file.

thanks Joe

-----Original Message-----

From: Joe WA6AXE <wa6axe at hotmail.com>

To: hankkier <hankkier at aol.com>

Sent: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 5:58 pm

Subject: RE: [Dxbase] Record count in initialize tables lower than last record number in log

Hank,

OK - I will await the ZIP file from you..

FYI - the record number means nothing at all to the user -- it is used

exclusively by the mdb file itself and should NOT be used to try to count

qso totals, etc ..

Joe

To: wa6axe at hotmail.com

Subject: Re: [Dxbase] Record count in initialize tables lower than last record number in log

From: hankkier at aol.com

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:19:23 -0500

will do Joe, and thanks for offering the help. only thing I could think of (i.e. speculate/guess) is perhaps deleted records might somehow be kept in the record count but not in the initialize tables process. however, I have no idea how many that might be. it is an infrequent occurence, although I have occasionally deleted a qso if I learned for sure it was no good. while investigating on my own, I also noticed that the record # assigned in each qso record doesn't begin with record # 1, in my case it is record # ~5000. when this amount is subtracted from the last record #,  the # records doesn't agree with either the count at the end of the logbook or the count given by initialize tables. very confusing. 

will get it zipped and out to you.

Hank  KF2O

-----Original Message-----

From: Joe WA6AXE <wa6axe at hotmail.com>

To: hankkier <hankkier at aol.com>

Sent: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Subject: RE: [Dxbase] Record count in initialize tables lower than last record number in log

Hank,

If you want - and I would be glad to help you out -- PSE

ZIp up and send me your logobok mdb file ...

Joe wa6axe

> To: dxbase at mailman.qth.net

> From: hankkier at aol.com

> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:41:02 -0500

> Subject: [Dxbase] Record count in initialize tables lower than last record number in log

> 

> 

> I just initialized tables and noted that the record count shown was about 50 records less than the number of the last record number in the logbook. Don't recall that ever happening before and as a longtime user I would be surprised if it has happened before. Any ideas what could explain it? or how to identify the logbook entries which are not being counted by the initialize function?

> 

> Hank KF2O

> 

> 

> 

> ______________________________________________________________

> Dxbase mailing list

> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dxbase

> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm

> Post: mailto:Dxbase at mailman.qth.net

> 

> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net

> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html