MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote on 2012-11-30: > In one of my apps, I'm putting in an option to copy some tables locally > and query there instead of the network. This will not only increase > performance (because this solution is a query-only solution...it's just > for reporting) but will allow the user to query while disconnected from > our network. > > Some of the tables involved do NOT have a timestamp field on them. For > the ones that do, I can just query the NETWORK and LOCAL tables joined > on primary keys where there's a difference in timestamp, but how do you > suggest I do it for the tables where no timestamp field exists? For > now, it's just one table and it's not large at all. (2500 records?) > > tia, > --Mike
Mike, If there isn't too many fields, and no Memo field. Union them together "to screen noconsole". If the RECCOUNT() = _TALLY then they are the same. If you didn't do a file copy of the file to the local machine, the headers will have different time stamps. So Hashing and the DOS FC command will show differences. Tracy Pearson PowerChurch Software _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
