[Exolent[jNr]]

So if you have STEAM_0:1:2345 and IP 12.34.56.78 with data, but then join with same Steam ID on a different IP such as 87.65.43.21, then you won't load that data?

[EpicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Exolent[jNr] So if you have STEAM_0:1:2345 and IP 12.34.56.78 with data, but then join with same Steam ID on a different IP such as 87.65.43.21, then you won't load that data?

yeah , or if you join with diff STEAM ID on the same ip , it wont load that data

[Exolent[jNr]]

Originally Posted by EpicMonkey yeah , or if you join with diff STEAM ID on the same ip , it wont load that data

Then yes, use the example you showed with random data.

[EpicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Exolent[jNr] Then yes, use the example you showed with random data.

aww man ..... , ive been thinking this upside down ....

What i actually want it to know if :

1.I save their ip address and steam id
2.When they connect with same ip and diff steam , his data will get loaded or if they connect with diff ip and steam id , his data will still get loaded.

I know it can be done this way

PHP Code:

public Save(id)
{
    new szAuthID[33], szIP[33];
    get_user_authid(id, szAuthID, charsmax(szAuthID)
    get_user_ip(id, szIP, charsmax(szIP))
    
    sqlv_pset_num_ex(g_hVault, szAuthID, "Random1", g_randomdata1[id])
    sqlv_pset_num_ex(g_hVault, szIP, "Random2", g_randomdata2[id])
}

public Load(id)
{
    
    new szAuthID[33], szIP[33];
    get_user_authid(id, szAuthID, charsmax(szAuthID)
    get_user_ip(id, szIP, charsmax(szIP))
    
    g_randomdata1[id] = sqlv_get_num_ex(g_hVault, szAuthID, "Random1")
    g_randomdata2[id] = sqlv_get_num_ex(g_hVault, szIP, "Random2")
} 


Is there a better way to do it?

[Exolent[jNr]]

Save(id) {
    new keys[2][35];
    get_user_authid(id, keys[0], charsmax(keys[]));
    get_user_ip(id, keys[1], charsmax(keys[]));
    
    sqlv_connect(gVault);
    
    for(new i = 0; i < sizeof(keys); i++) {
        sqlv_set_num_ex(gVault, keys[i], "some_data1", gSomeData1[id]);
        sqlv_set_num_ex(gVault, keys[i], "some_data2", gSomeData2[id]);
    }
    
    sqlv_disconnect(gVault);
}

Load(id) {
    new steamID[35], ip[32];
    get_user_authid(id, steamID, charsmax(steamID));
    get_user_ip(id, ip, charsmax(ip), 1);
    
    sqlv_connect(gVault);
    
    gSomeData1[id] = _get_num(steamID, ip, "some_data1");
    gSomeData2[id] = _get_num(steamID, ip, "some_data2");
    
    sqlv_disconnect(gVault);
}

_get_num(steamID[], ip[], key2[]) {
    if(sqlv_key_exists_ex(gVault, steamID, key2)) {
        return sqlv_get_num_ex(gVault, steamID, key2);
    }
    if(sqlv_key_exists_ex(gVault, ip, key2)) {
        return sqlv_get_num_ex(gVault, ip, key2);
    }
    return 0;
}

[EpicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Exolent[jNr] Save(id) {     new keys[2][35];     get_user_authid(id, keys[0], charsmax(keys[]));     get_user_ip(id, keys[1], charsmax(keys[]));         sqlv_connect(gVault);         for(new i = 0; i < sizeof(keys); i++) {         sqlv_set_num_ex(gVault, keys[i], "some_data1", gSomeData1[id]);         sqlv_set_num_ex(gVault, keys[i], "some_data2", gSomeData2[id]);     }         sqlv_disconnect(gVault); } Load(id) {     new steamID[35], ip[32];     get_user_authid(id, steamID, charsmax(steamID));     get_user_ip(id, ip, charsmax(ip), 1);         sqlv_connect(gVault);         gSomeData1[id] = _get_num(steamID, ip, "some_data1");     gSomeData2[id] = _get_num(steamID, ip, "some_data2");         sqlv_disconnect(gVault); } _get_num(const steamID[], const ip[], const key2[]) {     if(sqlv_key_exists_ex(gVault, steamID, key2)) {         return sqlv_get_num_ex(gVault, steamID, key2);     }     if(sqlv_key_exists_ex(gVault, ip, key2)) {         return sqlv_get_num_ex(gVault, ip, key2);     }     return 0; }

is there a difference in performance between the code i posted and the one you posted ?

[Exolent[jNr]]

Originally Posted by EpicMonkey is there a difference in performance between the code i posted and the one you posted ?

It caches the connection so it only connects and disconnects once for the function instead of connecting/disconnecting every sqlv_* function call.
Also, they have different logic.

[EpicMonkey]

i see , am kinda tired right now to understand anything ... ill take a detailed look at your code tomorrow , thank you again

Edit : tried compiling the above code , showing a tag mismatch , argument 2

PHP Code:

if(sqlv_key_exists_ex(gVault, steamID, key2)) 


[Exolent[jNr]]

Originally Posted by EpicMonkey Edit : tried compiling the above code , showing a tag mismatch , argument 2 PHP Code: if(sqlv_key_exists_ex(gVault, steamID, key2))

Forgot SQLVault doesn't allow constants as keys. Fixed the _get_num() header.

[t3hNox]

This may be a random question but is it likely that there might be conflicts between sqlvault_ex include and SQLx module ?

I'm currently working on a plugin which uses both this include and SQLx module (although the include itself basically uses SQLx). I store some player information in SQLite (local) DB but I also have to update some information from time to time in another external DB thus I have SQLx tuple and I make threated query connections (I hope I used the terminology correctly).

The problem is when I try to update information in external DB. An error shows up saying that there's "no such table: table_name". I've had the same problem previously but then I thought I simply didn't understand SQL well enough and gave up. Now I suspect that there might be something related to this include.

I have made a test plugin which makes connections to external DB and everything is ok until I include sqlvault_ex.
I also get different error messages but they have the same error code (#1). For example, when I use SQLx alone and there is some problem with SQL table I get "Table 'db_name.table_name' doesn't exist" message but when I include sqlvault_ex I get this error message: "no such table: table_name". So I suspect there might be some kind of conflict.

On a side note on #2 post sqlv_key_exists_ex(SQLVault:hVault, szKey1[], szKey2[]) function description seems to be wrong.