Subject: | Re: calcs and sorting
| Date: | Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:48:46 -0500
| From: | "Steven Green" <greens@diamondsg.com>
| Newsgroups: | pnews.paradox-dos
|
as I recall, checkplus just dumps the data, no sorting.. in a check query,
you'd never have to sort on the calc field, I don't think you CAN force a
sort on it, other than sorting the answer table
--
Steven Green
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
http://www.OasisTradingPost.com
Collectibles and Memorabilia
Vintage Lego Sets and Parts
- and Paradox support, too
"Bernie van't Hof" wrote in message
news:604811d3$1@pnews.thedbcommunity.com...
My bad. The _d in date is typo. Should be anything else.
Storm.
- Bernie
On 10/3/21 7:52 am, Michael Kennedy wrote:
> On 09/03/2021 20:24, Bernie van't Hof wrote:
>> The _d twice is ok. The diff of cols Dr and Cr values.
>
> But "_d" is also used for the DATE field?
>
>> You have docs!!
>
> Yes - I have all the 4.02 and 4.5 docs, and WPP, and a number of other
> PDoxDOS manuals, Dan's, etc, etc, etc... I might even have the 3.5 ones!
>
>> I threw out my 4.5 manuals 15 years ago. I seem to recall they got wet.
>> :(
>
> Alcohol? Rage? ;-)
>
> - M.
>
>
>> On 9/3/21 9:19 pm, Michael Kennedy wrote:
>>> Bernie,
>>>
>>> I think the basic rule is: "If there's any 'CheckPlus', then ALL matches
>>> are extracted/processed, and no sorting is done?". However, I'd need to
>>> either check the docs, or run a few tests.
>>>
>>> Also, the query has "_d" in two different fields, so would that either
>>> cause syntax errors, or create an empty answer table?
>>>
>>> - Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2021 22:16, Bernie van't Hof wrote:
>>>> Given:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Table | A/C# | Ref | Date |
>>>> | CHECK | CHECK | _d, CALC TODAY - _d as Days |
>>>>
>>>> Table | Dr | Cr |
>>>> | _d, CALC _d - _c as Bal | _c |
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Q1. What, if any, sorting?
>>>> Q2. Change CHECKs to CHECKPLUSs. Repeat Q1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I'm seeing:
>>>>
>>>> A/C# and Ref: sorted.
>>>> Bal: not sorted.
>>>> Days: sorted if CHECKs, not if CHECKPLUSs. <== Why ?
>>>>
>>>> It would appear stupid to ever use CHECKPLUSs but it might be
>>>> significant someplace else.
|