On Jun 2, 2009, at 2:13 PM, ciara belle wrote: > ok -so i had to open q up - this is another argument for running > balances...and get balances from there - and compare transactions- as > that was the only way i could reconcile back to 1998... i only have e- > statments to 2003... and no paper statements from ten plus years > ago... looks like a bunch of the same type of transaction (payee) all > imported as payment rather than charge... so i had to go month by > month for all of 2001 - then i was finally able to reconcile it up to > today... > > what a mess
Actually, I think this is an argument against running balances. Now I'm a programmer so I think in efficient algorithms but if I had 10+ years of data (first I wouldn't keep it all on one document, I'd have a history document and a current one), I would split the list in half until I found the problem. I'd check the end transaction and then the first one. If the first is right and then end is wrong, I'd got to the middle. If the middle was right, then I'd split the list again in the first half. I only check the daily balance at the bottom a few times until I isolate the day of the balance problem. Then I only have to fix that single day of transactions. This is very quick because 10,000 transactions goes down to a handful in just a few iterations. Peace, Kevin Hoctor [email protected] No Thirst Software LLC http://nothirst.com http://kevinhoctor.blogspot.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "No Thirst Software User Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/no-thirst-software?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
