Subject: | Re: Multi-Line queries
| Date: | Tue, 12 Jun 2018 04:55:12 +1000
| From: | Bernie van't Hof <berniev@bje.com.au>
| Newsgroups: | pnews.paradox-dos
|
Just to let you know I havn't gone away. This discussion prompted a lot of rethink. Still plugging
away.
On 12/5/18 5:32 am, Michael Kennedy wrote:
> On 11/05/2018 18:17, Bernie van't Hof wrote:
>> Most of these are selects with various tests, which are not too hard to convert using
multiple queries and UNION.
>>
>> There are some that change or delete and that is giving me pause for thought. Maybe
the only way is multiple queries
>> in a TRANSACTION, but that causes complications building the CHANGED and DELETED result
tables. Mmmmmmm.
>
> Well, if I'm the only one running some of these oddball constructs then maybe skip them?
>
>> Also a timely reminder to implement "!". I currently recognise it but don't follow
through in the join.
>>
>> And I bet you had fun with this one:
>>
>> On 11/5/18 8:02 am, Michael Kennedy wrote:
>>> Menu {Ask} Select Trans_01_Tmp
>>> Moveto [Account No] "_ac"
>>> Moveto [Year End Date] "_dt"
>>> Moveto [Run Batches] "Y"
>>> Moveto [Business Typ] "~ForB" ;Fishing/BUSINESS
>>>
>>> MENU {Ask} SELECT TaxPadP
>>> MOVETO [Account No] "_a!,_ac" CHECKPLUS
>>> MOVETO [Year End Date] "_b!,_dt" CHECKPLUS
>>> [Line No] = "~tot_line" ;= match on line
"37"
>>> DOWN
;A-N-D (because of next _a,_b)
>>> MOVETO [Account No] "_a" ;??? Maybe ",count=0" here
also
>>> MOVETO [Year End Date] "_b" ;??? Maybe ",count=0" here
also
>>>
>>> [Line No] = "not ~tot_line,count=0" ;have
a total of NO
>>>
;lines, WITHOUT 37
>>> Do_It! Qry_is_Ok("B18") ClearAll
>
> Wow - that looks like many wasted hours and lost sleep ;-)
>
> However, though I do vaguely recall the actual app, I've no clue now what all that "37"
thing is all about, and what the
> query was trying to achieve. However, that app was run by a few hundred users, maybe 10-20-30
times per working day,
> over, perhaps 25-30 years, and is probably still running, and I'm pretty sure the query
is working correctly ;-)
>
> If you want me to dig out the context, and exactly what it's trying to do, let me know.
>
> - Mike
|