Hi Tamar,

First, thank you for the reply (I still have some of your books as reference).

Exact is OFF for both environments.
What puzzles me is that, if there was a fundamental issue in my VFP7 development/production environment, I would have had much, much more serious issues throughout the application; both files are used often with the very same relationship set.

I just did some experimenting in my VFP 7 environment... manually opening the files and setting the relationships. Did a seek to an employee ID that was missing in the report (and should have been there) - the relationship worked as expected.

In response to Dorris' response, the application has evolved since 1989 FoxPro DOS, so reports were/are generated mostly from the actual tables and relationships set. May not be part of current thinking, but has worked well for 22 years (ancient canines/tricks).

I was sure Tore's suggestion would shed light, but the code pages are the same for both files. Also, one group on the same server has NO issues.

If this works at the command level, and in other areas of the application, then I'm doing something wrong in this routine, but I know not what... It is NOT complex - Files opened, relationships set, scan...endscan. Except that the child table is yielding info for the wrong employee id, skewing the result.


>>Hi,
>>
>>I've recently encountered a baffling issue, and would appreciate it if anyone has a explanation.
>>First, I'm using VFP9 in my development environment, but the production environment uses VFP7.
>>The start program is an exe compiled with VFP7 and the rest of the sub programs are FXPs.
>>
>>One new report uses a table related by Employee ID to another table.
>>For some strange reason, under VFP7 the relationship is not correctly moving the pointer for the second table as in:
>>
>>USE TableOne ORDER empid shared
>>USE TableTwo ORDER empid shared in 0
>>SET RELATION TO empid INTO TableTwo
>>
>>TableOne empid is one value, tableTwo empid is not the same under VFP7, but works fine under VFP9.
>>This is causing the report to yield 100's or records under VFP7 and 10's of thousands of records (correctly) under VFP9.
>>
>>I reindexed the tables - no luck.
>>I did notice that the problem was was with 2 sites, but not the third where it worked just fine (all under VFP7)
>>
>>I have kludged it to work with a:
>>=seek(TableOne.empid,'TableTwo','empid')
>>
>>...but this is fundamental and I'd like to know what I've done wrong...
>
>Are you sure SET EXACT is the same in the two environments?
>
>Tamar