Jonathan Casiot

For info, I'm using Bouncy Castle 1.80 with jackcess-encrypt 4.0.2 to access and update MS Money (MSISAM) files and all is working well. Also, to add to the thanks for the continuing support and development of jackcess and jackcess-encrypt.

Thanks for that info. I'll keep digging into the particular issue I have and see where that takes me.

I'm referring to the reported number of rows in the index that is backed by just the primary key. In my test, after one record has been updated, the table contains 74 rows but the index that is backed by the primary key is reported as having a unique entry count of 75. I've added a couple of screenshots from the db browser app that show this.

I'm referring to the reported number of rows in the index that is backed by just the primary key. In my test, after one record has been updated, the table contains 74 rows but the index that is backed by the primary key is reported as having a unique entry count of 75.

Hi, The code is here on GitHub. The db is opened in MsmDb (line 106) and then everything else happens in MsmSecurity: * The table is instantiated at line 46; * Cursor gets created at line 104; * updateCurrentRowFromMap happens at line 129. I've made a copy of the MS Money file available here on Google Drive and also the third-party JAR I'm using the browse the db. Password for the Money file is "test".

After updating a row in an MSISAM - Microsoft Money - database using the Cursor method updateCurrentRowFromMap I can see that the size of the primary key index has increased by one, even though the size of the table has remained the same. For example, before the update both the table and PK index contained 74 rows but after the update the table contained 74 rows and the PK index size is reported as 75 rows. I would expect the PK index size to remain the same as the table size - or am I missing something...

After updating a row in an MSISAM - Microsoft Money - database using the Cursor method updateCurrentRowFromMap I can see that the size of the primary key index has increased by one, even though the size of the table has remained the same. For example, before the update both the table and PK index contained 74 rows but after the update the table contained 74 rows and the PK index size is reported as 75 rows. I would expect the PK index size to remain the same as the table size - or am I missing something...